On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 7:52 AM Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Yoshihiro > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 12:40:54PM +0000, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote: > > Hi Serge, > > > > > From: Serge Semin, Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 5:49 AM > > > > > > Currently the 'interrupts' and 'interrupt-names' properties are defined > > > being too generic to really describe any actual IRQ interface. Moreover > > > the DW PCIe End-point devices are left with no IRQ signals. All of that > > > can be fixed by adding the IRQ-related properties to the common DW PCIe > > > DT-schemas in accordance with the hardware reference manual. The DW PCIe > > > common DT-schema will contain the generic properties definitions with just > > > a number of entries per property, while the DW PCIe RP/EP-specific schemas > > > will have the particular number of items and the generic resource names > > > listed. > > > > > > Note since there are DW PCI-based vendor-specific DT-bindings with the > > > custom names assigned to the same IRQ resources we have no much choice but > > > to add them to the generic DT-schemas in order to have the schemas being > > > applicable for such devices. These names are marked as vendor-specific and > > > should be avoided being used in new bindings in favor of the generic > > > names. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Note without the next dtschema tool fix > > > > > > --- a/lib.py 2022-09-29 15:17:13.100033810 +0300 > > > +++ b/lib.py 2022-09-29 15:19:54.886172794 +0300 > > > > > JFYI. > > > > git am command could not work correctly by this lib.py file: > > --- > > Applying: dt-bindings: PCI: dwc: Add interrupts/interrupt-names common properties > > error: lib.py: does not exist in index > > Patch failed at 0001 dt-bindings: PCI: dwc: Add interrupts/interrupt-names common properties > > --- > > > > If I used patch command and skipped the lib.py, it could apply this patch correctly. > > Got it. Thanks for the note. I'll either drop this part on the next > patchset revision (hopefully Rob will do something about that by then) > or make it less looking like a patch so git am wouldn't be confused. Now fixed in main branch. Thanks for the report. Rob
