Re: [PATCH v4 03/38] dt-bindings: mfd: qcom-pm8xxx: allow using interrupts-extended

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 at 15:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 27/08/2023 13:48, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > 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'
>
> Since when? So again: The entire patch is not needed.

Hmm, interesting. I'm pretty sure that I saw the issue, but now I can
no longer reproduce it. Maybe I misinterpreted some other warning
which I saw while this was WIP.
I see that it is handled by the `fixup_interrupts` in dtschema itself.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Media Devel]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Wireless Networking]     [Linux Omap]

  Powered by Linux