Il 25/01/24 11:32, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
On 24/01/2024 09:48, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Il 23/01/24 18:14, Conor Dooley ha scritto:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:32:30AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Il 19/01/24 17:32, Conor Dooley ha scritto:
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 10:41:04AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
This IP has only one interrupt, hence interrupt-names is not necessary
to have.
Since there is no user yet, simply remove interrupt-names.
I'm a bit confused chief. Patch 2 in this series removes a user of this
property from a driver, so can you explain how this statement is true?
Maybe I need to drink a few cans of Monster and revisit this patchset?
What I mean with "there is no user" is that there's no device tree with any
mt6360-tcpc node upstream yet, so there is no meaningful ABI breakage.
Different story would be if there was a device tree using this already, in
which case, you can make a required property optional but not remove it.
Not every devicetree lives within the kernel.. If the driver is using
it, I'm not inclined to agree that it should be removed.
I get the point, but as far as I remember, it's not the first time that this
kind of change is upstreamed.
I'm fine with keeping things as they are but, since my intention is to actually
introduce an actual user of this binding upstream, and that actually depends on
if this change is accepted or not (as I have to know whether I can omit adding
the interrupt-names property or not)....
....may I ask for more feedback/opinions from Rob and/or Krzk?
Driver is the user and this is an old binding (released!), thus there
can be out-of-kernel users already.
Minor cleanup is not really a reason to affect ABI. You could deprecate
it, though. Driver change is fine.
Thanks for the clarification. If USB maintainers want to take the driver part only
without me resending this, I'd appreciate that.
The interrupt-names is not a required property in this binding anyway... :-)
Thanks again,
Angelo
