On 26/12/2023 16:03, Krishna Kurapati PSSNV wrote: > > > On 12/26/2023 5:52 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>> >>>> This does not answer why, you sc8280xp and x1e80100 not get one optional >>>> interrupt. I asked "why" you are doing this change. Why do you need it? >>>> What is the rationale? >>>> >>>> Then I grunted about unmanageable commit, because all my troubles to >>>> review it are the effect of it: it is very difficult to read. It is also >>>> difficult for you, because you keep making here mistakes. So if you >>>> cannot write this commit properly and I cannot review it, then it is way >>>> over-complicated, don't you think? But this is still second problem >>>> here, don't ignore the fist - "why?" >>> >>> HI Krzysztof, >>> >>> Thanks for the review. >>> To answer the question, >>> >>> "why ?" : The interrupts have been mis-interpreted on many platforms or >>> many interrupts are missing. >> >> I asked about these two specific platforms. Please explain these >> changes. Above is so generic that tells me nothing. >> > > Is the question, "Why do x1e80100 and sc8280 don't have hs_phy_irq ?" No, not entirely, the question was why these have flexible number of IRQs (last one optional)? > If so, I checked the SC8280 HW specifics and I see one small error. The > name was printed wrong. I got it from another source. Will move sc8280 > to list having 5 interrupts. As per x1e80100, I wasn't able to get my > hands on the hw specifics and I followed the following link by Abel Vesa: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231214-x1e80100-usb-v1-1-c22be5c0109e@xxxxxxxxxx > > As per the above patch, x1e80100 had only 4 interrupts. Hm, ok, you say "4" but your patch says "minItems: 3". 3 != 4. > For ipq5332, it has no hs_phy_irq and so I kept it under this section. > >>> >>> Now, if I am adding the missing interrupts, I need to segregate targets >>> also into respective buckets in the same patch and that is what making >>> this patch a little complicated. Is it possible / acceptable to split >>> this into two patches if this is the case. Can you help with suggestions >>> from your end ? Or may be I am understanding your question wrong ? 😅 >> >> Split the patch into manageable chunks. >> > > I will try to split it up, but not sure if it is a good idea. I say so > because all permutations should be added in single patch and I can't > split that. Best regards, Krzysztof
