On 29/11/2022 11:05, Sibi Sankar wrote: > On 11/28/22 14:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 28/11/2022 06:57, Sibi Sankar wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Which devices have interrupts? >>>> >>>> We talked about it here: >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/2464d90f-64e9-5e3c-404b-10394c3bc302@xxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>> and here: >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/c20edd0d-7613-5683-60e7-54317cac6e0b@xxxxxxxxxx/ >>>> >>>> But I still don't get which devices support it and which do not. >>> >>> lol, I thought we reached a consensus earlier because of the "ok" and >>> R-b. Like I explained earlier the bootloader would be adding interrupt >>> on the fly, wouldn't such cases cause binding check failure if we list >>> all the devices supporting it? >> >> What type of failure? I don't get. Is this interrupt valid for SM8250? >> SDM845? MSM8996? and so on? Now you make it valid. > > ok if we mark the interrupt as required for SM8450 and not specify the > interrupt in the board file (since the bootloader will be adding it on > the fly), dtbs_check will throw 'interrupts' is a required property for > the board file. This was the failure I was talking about. OK, but no one said here about making it required. So how this issue can happen? Please read above chapter again. I said nothing about required, but I said "valid". > >> >>> Also some of the SM8450 devices in the >>> wild would be running firmware not having the feature but I guess >>> eventually most of the them will end up supporting the feature in the >>> end. >> >> That's not what I meant. Your patch describes the case for one variant >> but you are affecting all of them. > > Not really, the driver treats interrupts as optional. Linux implementation matters less. We talk about device/hardware (firmware in this case). > If the interrupt > isn't present we assume that the feature isn't supported. If the > bootloader adds the property during boot then we assume the fw has > waitqueue support. Sure, my question stays. Which devices do not support it at all? Best regards, Krzysztof
