On 09/07/2024 at 08:13, Varshini Rajendran - I67070 wrote: > On 03/07/24 9:11 pm, Conor Dooley wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 03:58:14PM +0530, Varshini Rajendran wrote: >>> Add the description and conditions to the device tree documentation >>> for the property microchip,nr-irqs. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Varshini Rajendran<varshini.rajendran@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> This needs to be part of patch 14. >> >>> --- >>> .../bindings/interrupt-controller/atmel,aic.yaml | 12 ++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/atmel,aic.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/atmel,aic.yaml >>> index 9c5af9dbcb6e..06e5f92e7d53 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/atmel,aic.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/atmel,aic.yaml >>> @@ -54,6 +54,10 @@ properties: >>> $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-array >>> description: u32 array of external irqs. >>> >>> + microchip,nr-irqs: >>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-array >>> + description: u32 array of nr_irqs. >> This makes no sense, did you just copy from above? Why would the number >> of irqs be an array? Why can't you determine this from the compatble? >> > Sorry for the bad description. I will correct it in the next version. > > For the second part of the question, this change was done as a step to > resolve having a new compatible while having practically the same IP > pointed out in the v3 of the series [1]. It is kind of looping back to > the initial idea now. Even if this is added as a driver data, it > overrides the expectation from the comment in [1]. Please suggest. I In your v3 patch, indeed you were extracting the number of IRQs from the compatibility string (aka, from device tree...). It's my preferred solution as well. So, come back to v3 [1] and address what Conor said in v4 "...having specific $soc_aic5_of_init() functions for each SoC seems silly when usually only the number of interrupts changes. The number of IRQs could be in the match data and you could use aic5_of_init in your IRQCHIP_DECLARE directly" I think that we can convince Marc/Thomas that it's the best option as it prevents introducing another non-standard property to the DT, break the ABI (and was used happily for years). Best regards, Nicolas [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87ee1e3c365686bc60e92ba3972dc1a5@xxxxxxxxxx/ > also read Rob's concerns on having a device tree property for number of > irqs. > > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87ee1e3c365686bc60e92ba3972dc1a5@xxxxxxxxxx/ > >> Thanks, >> Conor. >> >>> + >>> allOf: >>> - $ref: /schemas/interrupt-controller.yaml# >>> - if: >>> @@ -71,6 +75,14 @@ allOf: >>> atmel,external-irqs: >>> minItems: 1 >>> maxItems: 1 >>> + - if: >>> + properties: >>> + compatible: >>> + contains: >>> + const: microchip,sam9x7-aic >>> + then: >>> + required: >>> + - microchip,nr-irqs >>> >>> required: >>> - compatible >>> -- >>> 2.25.1 >>> >
