On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 11:04 AM Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 08:07:07AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 1:26 AM Manivannan Sadhasivam > > <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 03:32:16PM -0600, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote: > > > > "#interrupt-cells" is not valid without a corresponding "interrupt-map" > > > > or "interrupt-controller" property. As the example has neither, drop > > > > "#interrupt-cells". This fixes a dtc interrupt_provider warning. > > > > > > > > > > But the DWC controllers have an in-built MSI controller. Shouldn't we add > > > 'interrrupt-controller' property then? > > > > Why? Is that needed for the MSI controller to function? I don't think so. > > > > No. I was asking from bindings perspective. > > > Now we do have "interrupt-controller" present for a number of MSI > > providers. I suspect that's there to get OF_DECLARE to work, but I > > doubt we really need MSI controllers initialized early. > > > > Again no, for this case. I was under the assumption that all interrupt > providers should have the 'interrupt-controller' property in their nodes. Yes. What interrupts is the DW controller providing? Only the PCI legacy interrupts which are optional. An msi-controller and an interrupt-controller are 2 distinct providers. An MSI provider is not an interrupt provider, but an interrupt consumer. Some bindings define both, but I think many of those cases are probably wrong. Rob
