Hi Conor,
Thank you for the review.
On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 5:07 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 09:39:05AM +0000, Prabhakar wrote:
> > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > RZ/{G2L, G2LC}, RZ/G2UL, RZ/V2L and RZ/G3S SoCs have ECCRAM0/1 interrupts,
> > reflect the same in the DT binding doc.
>
> Renesas' naming scheme really does not help here, but using the
> shorthands in the commit message when the diff uses the long form names
> is not the easiest thing to follow. (:
>
Sure I'll elabore the SoCs according to the binding doc so that it's more clear.
> >
> > RZ/G3S SoC has ECCRAM0/1 interrupts combined into single interrupts so
> > we just use the below to represent them:
> > - ec7tie1-0
> > - ec7tie2-0
> > - ec7tiovf-0
>
> I think this information would be good in the itemised description,
> since that claims these interrupt are only for ECCRAM0.
>
Sure 'll update as below:
+ - const: ec7tie1-0 # For RZ/G3S SoC ECCRAM0/1 interrupts combined
+ - const: ec7tie2-0 # For RZ/G3S SoC ECCRAM0/1 interrupts combined
+ - const: ec7tiovf-0 # For RZ/G3S SoC ECCRAM0/1 interrupts combined
>
> > Additionally mark 'interrupt-names' property as required for all the SoCs
> > and update the example node in the binding doc.
>
> Why? You've not given a reason for doing this, so it just seems
> gratuitous.
>
Previous assumption was just the RZ/G2UL and RZ/G3S had the bus-err
and eccram error interrupts, but where as in actual all the above SoCs
have this interrupt so making interrupt-names as required so we can
parse them based on names.
Cheers,
Prabhakar
