On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 05:27:32PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 06:54:06PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 10:53:06AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > Unless explicitly specified the interrupt-parent property is inherited
> > > from the parent node on Linux even though this may not be in full
> > > compliance with the devicetree specification.
> > >
> > > Following commit 2d5cab9232ba ("arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp-pmics:
> > > Specify interrupt parent explicitly"), add an explicit interrupt parent
> > > also for the PMIC RTC node for the benefit of other operating systems
> > > which may be confused by this omission.
> > >
> > > Note that any such OS must still implement a fallback to the root
> > > interrupt domain as most devicetrees are written under the assumption
> > > that the interrupt parent is inherited.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Patrick Wildt <patrick@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > It is good to encode this in the binding and fix other such instances.
>
> Not sure about that. Perhaps the spec should be updated to match reality
> instead... We have many more instances like this, even for this very
> SoC, but apparently OpenBSD or whatever OS needs this falls back to the
> root domain then.
>
Just because linux is doing it in a different way doesn't warrant an amendment
to the spec IMO.
> Changing this for the rtc node for consistency after you changed the
> others is a no-brainer, but not sure about trying to do this tree-wide.
> We already have too many of these one-line DT cleanups...
>
I agree that this is going to be a one-line cleanup but someone has to do it.
(not asking you to do since I also skipped it during 2d5cab9232ba). We can put
it in the back burner.
- Mani
> Johan
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
