On 12/27/2023 12:34 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
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.
Actually, you are right. We don't need the max/min items as we are sure
that the targets mentioned under this have 4 interrupts definitively.
But the optional interrupt was put in just in case any target comes in
that has no ss_phy and no hs_phy and has only the other 3 interrupts.
Since those targets are not present currently, I will remove the max/min
items from this.
Thanks for the catch. Sorry for bothering you with a couple of mails
because I didn't understand the question you were trying to ask.
Regards,
Krishna,
