On 09:46-20201124, Sekhar Nori wrote: > 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. I see that Grygorii is suggesting 1,3,4 to be pulled in. can you repost with just the required patches alone and pick up the reviewed-bys? -- Regards, Nishanth Menon Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3 1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D
