On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 at 14:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 27/08/2023 12:42, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 at 11:35, Krzysztof Kozlowski > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 27/08/2023 02:58, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >>> Allow using interrupts-extended, which is a preferred form of interrupts > >>> specification compared to the interrupt-parrent + interrupts pair. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml | 10 +++++++++- > >>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml > >>> index 7fe3875a5996..33d9615e63c8 100644 > >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml > >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml > >>> @@ -37,6 +37,9 @@ properties: > >>> interrupts: > >>> maxItems: 1 > >>> > >>> + interrupts-extended: > >>> + maxItems: 1 > >> > >> The entire patch is not needed. At least should not be needed. What > >> problem are you trying to solve here? > > > > The main problem is the next chunk, which (currently) explicitly > > requires `interrupts' property. My goal is to allow > > `interrupts-extended' in addition to `interrupts'. > > They are allowed. Why do you think they aren't? That's why I don't > understand what real problem is here. qcom-pm8xxx.yaml lists `interrupts' property under the `required' clause. So I can not simply replace it with `interrupts-extended' -- With best wishes Dmitry
