On Sun, Mar 02, 2025 at 10:33:56PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Sun, Mar 02, 2025 at 07:28:09PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 02, 2025 at 08:10:26PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > > + interrupts: > > > > + items: > > > > + - description: Subsystem interrupt > > > > + - description: The interrupt to manage the remote wake-up packet detection > > > > + - description: The interrupt that occurs when Tx/Rx enters/exits the LPI state > > > > + - description: Per-channel transmission-0 completion interrupt > > > > + - description: Per-channel transmission-1 completion interrupt > > > > + - description: Per-channel transmission-2 completion interrupt > > > > + - description: Per-channel transmission-3 completion interrupt > > > > + - description: Per-channel receive-0 completion interrupt > > > > + - description: Per-channel receive-1 completion interrupt > > > > + - description: Per-channel receive-2 completion interrupt > > > > + - description: Per-channel receive-3 completion interrupt > > > > + > > > > + interrupt-names: > > > > + items: > > > > + - const: macirq > > > > + - const: eth_wake_irq > > > > + - const: eth_lpi > > > > + - const: tx0 > > > > + - const: tx1 > > > > + - const: tx2 > > > > + - const: tx3 > > > > + - const: rx0 > > > > + - const: rx1 > > > > + - const: rx2 > > > > + - const: rx3 > > > > > > There has already been a discussion about trying to make the clock > > > names more uniform. But what about interrupts? Which of these are in > > > the IP databook? What names does the databook use for these > > > interrupts? > > > > >From a quick look, I haven't found anything that suggests the above > > is possible, but it clearly is... so I'll look more tomorrow. > > stmmac_platform.c: stmmac_res->irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "macirq"); > stmmac_platform.c: platform_get_irq_byname_optional(pdev, "eth_wake_irq"); > stmmac_platform.c: platform_get_irq_byname_optional(pdev, "eth_lpi"); > stmmac_platform.c: platform_get_irq_byname_optional(pdev, "sfty"); > > So it looks like these are already in common code. So there should be > no need to name them in individual bindings, they can be named in the > common binding, and the vendor binding then just needs to indicate > they are required, or not. The vendor bindings need to define the order. And to define if they are required, you have to list the names again... Rob
