Hi Alan,

I think the "source" combines the usage of "number" and "name" since a tooling is needed eventually and tool can decide the assigned value is a number or name. Something like:

/* Init Secure Partition - here is the pseudo code and does not exist in real sources */ p_irq_ctx = get_interrupt_ctx_by_source (p_manifest->source); /* Tool has converted the number or name into specified source index type */ init_interrupt(p_irq_ctx, THIS_SP); /* SP-IRQ binding is needed */

The 'source' here is just a keyword for tool searching in the platform resource descriptions and be converted into a program recognizable index so that runtime code could know the interrupt context and do something. The irq_number you proposed is direct which is good; but for the name, if we need to do extra operations instead of just know where the handler is, a looking up is still needed based on the irq name provided. That is just my opinion, you can try the email in FF spec for collecting feedbacks: arm.psa-feedback@arm.com

BR

/Ken

-----Original Message----- From: TF-M tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org On Behalf Of DeMars, Alan via TF-M Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2019 2:38 AM To: 'tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org' tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] irqs "source" field

I think the PSA FF current definition of the "irqs" "source" attribute is needlessly opaque, confusing, and limiting.

Why can't there simply be two attributes "irq_number" and "irq_name".

"irq_number" corresponds to the CMSIS XYZ_IRQn convention in terms of its interpretation. It can be either a literal number or a manifest constant.

"irq_name" is the symbolic name of the ISR as it appears in the user's vector table.

That way there is no confusion regarding how they will be used.

Alan