On 5/17/2023 5:14 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 04:40:11PM +0530, Krishna Kurapati PSSNV wrote:
On 5/16/2023 4:29 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 11:19:09AM +0530, Krishna Kurapati wrote:
+ interrupts:
+ maxItems: 7
+ interrupt-names:
+ items:
+ - const: dp_hs_phy_irq
+ - const: dm_hs_phy_irq
+ - const: ss_phy_irq
I assume that these are only for the first port, and that you need to
define these interrupts also for ports 2-4.
I wanted to add them when wakeup-source is enabled but since you
mentioned that these must be added now and driver support can be added
later, I will make a patch separately for this in v9.
Can I use the following notation for the new interrupts ?
dp_hs_port2_irq
dm_hs_port2_irq
dp_hs_port3_irq
dm_hs_port3_irq
dp_hs_port4_irq
dm_hs_port4_irq
That way the interrupt names for first port will be same as ones for
single port.
For consistency, I'd say: use the same scheme also for port1. Perhaps
"port" is unnecessary too.
And since these are getting new names, you can drop the redundant "_irq"
suffix as you did for the power-event lines.
Hi Johan,
The reason I wanted to mark it as dp_hs_portX_irq is to keep code
changes to driver simple. The existing code to read current IRQ's can
stay as it. Only need to add changes for reading IRQ's of new ports.
For example:
pwr_event_1
dp_hs_phy_1
dm_hs_phy_1
ss_phy_1
...
Wanted to clarify this before I make a formal patch.
Note that I have some more comments on the remaining patches in the
series that you may want to wait for before posting v9.
Johan
Sure, Will wait till end of week for all comments and push v9 next week.
Regards,
Krishna,
