On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 02:23:31PM +0500, Nikita Yushchenko wrote: > > > > Sorry, but I can't find where this property is documented? > > > > > > I will add this. > > > > Device tree properties should be a hardware description. However, > > about the "irq-index", it seems a software configuration. So, even if we would > > like to submit such a patch to add the property, it will be rejected. > > Hmm... > > Indeed it is a software configuration. > > I was not aware of such a rule. > > I believe there shall be plenty of situations when a per-hardware-node > software configuration is desired. What method do other use, if not device > tree? > > > Also, even if we can add a new device tree property, we should keep backward compatible. > > However, this patch seems to break a backward compatibility. > > It does not. > If this new property is not defined, then it will default to 0, which will > result exactly into previous behavior. This is where the DT binding patch would of been useful, because you would of stated that in the binding... Backwards compatibility is something reviewers always look for, so it is good to make it obvious that it has been considered. Even if it is backwards compatible, lets see if we can think of a way to not require the property. Maybe you can explain the hardware in more details, and what you are trying to achieve. Andrew
