On 27/08/2023 14:57, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. If interrupts were brought by some other schema and that one did not evaluate, then you could see errors about interrupt-extended. But that's not the case here. Best regards, Krzysztof
