[PATCH][v1] powerpc/85xx: Create dts for each core in CAMPmodeforP2020RDB

[Aggrwal Poonam-B10812]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> linuxppc-dev-bounces+poonam.aggrwal=freescale.com at lists.ozlabs
> .org 
> [mailto:linuxppc-dev-bounces+poonam.aggrwal=freescale.com at list
> s.ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of Kumar Gala
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:10 PM
> To: Aggrwal Poonam-B10812
> Cc: linuxppc-dev at ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH][v1] powerpc/85xx: Create dts for each 
> core in CAMPmodeforP2020RDB
> 
> 
> On Sep 11, 2009, at 6:47 AM, Aggrwal Poonam-B10812 wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Ok, I wrongly understood protected interrupts as reserved for one 
> >> core. However, I still dislike two devices having the same name.
> >>
> >> Otherwise it may work if every interrupt is delivered to 
> both cores 
> >> although statistically only one core will actually have 
> some work to 
> >> do. Doesn't the kernel complain about unhandled irqs however?
> >>
> > We don't see any such messages of unhandled interrupts, although I 
> > checked the corresponding files for mpc8572ds, they do not have the 
> > interrupts property for the serial ports at all, in both 
> the core0 and
> > core1 dts.
> > Don't know the reason.
> 
> the p2020 versions shouldn't have an interrupt property in 
> the serial node.  The reason we removed it in the 8572 CAMP 
> dts is to make sure we get polling mode.  As Gabriel points 
> out sharing the IRQ between the two OSes is not safe.  While 
> it might seem to work it will have issues at some point.
> 
Thanks for the explanation. Probably we are not seeing an issue, because
we are protecting the int 42 in both the dts files.
So probably mpic is not forwarding the interrupt to any of the cores.

Anyways I will rework the patch and resend.

Kind Regards
Poonam
> - k
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
> 
>