Quoting Fenglin Wu (2022-06-11 20:24:44) > From: David Collins <collinsd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Make all interrupt related properties as optional instead of > required. Some boards do not required PMIC IRQ support and it > isn't needed to handle SPMI bus transactions, so specify it as > optional. > > Signed-off-by: David Collins <collinsd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spmi/qcom,spmi-pmic-arb.yaml | 3 --- > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spmi/qcom,spmi-pmic-arb.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spmi/qcom,spmi-pmic-arb.yaml > index 55d379c..fee4f0e 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spmi/qcom,spmi-pmic-arb.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spmi/qcom,spmi-pmic-arb.yaml > @@ -88,9 +88,6 @@ properties: > required: > - compatible > - reg-names > - - interrupts > - - interrupt-names > - - '#interrupt-cells' Let me clarify my comment on the next driver patch here. It looks like we're making the properties optional here so that the driver can choose to create or not create the irqchip based on the presence of the property. Are there PMIC arbiters that don't have irq support? Or is it only that some board designs don't use interrupt support of the PMIC, because all the devices that use interrupts on the PMIC aren't enabled (status = "okay")? We shouldn't get into a situation where we're removing the interrupt properties because we want the driver to skip creating the irqchip. That makes the binding too loose, where we can't validate existing DT files. It also makes it confusing to include the DTS files when the device always supports interrupt capabilities, just we don't want to use it.
