On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 05:17:26PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 5:10 AM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > > > > No this doesn't work IMO. Yes standalone everything looks fine, but you can > > insert a module requesting this channel and bring down the system. So I am > > not for this change. > > Not having the interrupt listed in DT doesn't prevent that. Is this > security by obscurity? > I agree, as I mentioned in the other thread, if we had a way to mark that channel as used elsewhere or disabled or unavailable, it would have been great. > I don't really care which way this is fixed though. Understood. > I just want the warning gone. We've all got better things to worry about. Agreed. > The DT not having the interrupt has been that way for years (presumably) > and the kernel never needs the interrupt, so the schema should reflect > reality. I prefer this approach. > On the flip side, considering it *can* be present already, there's not > really much argument for not having it. > Can't disagree/argue that 😄. -- Regards, Sudeep
