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. Best regards, Krzysztof
