On 24/11/20 6:51 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 09:45-20201123, Sekhar Nori wrote: >>>> The main reason I commented - is hope to get some clarification from DT maintainers. >>>> 90% of interrupt-controller nodes do not have #address-cells and I never seen in in GPIO nodes >>>> (most often is present in PCI and GIC nodes). >>>> and nobody seems fixing it. So, if we are going to move this direction it's reasonable to get clarification to be sure. >>>> >>>> And there is no "never" here - #address-cells always can be added if really required. >>> >>> >>> OK - as a GPIO node, but as an interrupt-controller node, I was >>> looking at [1] and wondering if that was the precedence. >>> >>> Yes, will be good to get direction from the DT maintainers on this >>> topic. >> >> Shall I respin this series with 2/4 dropped while we wait for decision >> on this? >> >> #address-cells warnings on interrupt controller can perhaps be handled >> all at once (there are many of those in existing DT anyway). >> >> GPIO is basic support and holds up many other modules (like MMC/SD). > > > There are'nt too many new patches in my queue that depends on GPIO, I'd > rather not introduce new warnings unless we are completely at a > stalemate. I'd rather use this opportunity to understand where what we > need to be doing. GPIO was originally submitted as part of 8 patch series titled "[PATCH 0/8] Add support for UHS modes in TI's J721e and J7200 boards" Rest of those patches need to be resubmitted after GPIO is accepted. Can you apply patch 1/4 at least. Its fairly non-controversial. It will help reduce patch backlog and fix some warnings too. Thanks, Sekhar
