On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 01:20:59PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 10:06:19AM +0530, Krishna Kurapati wrote: > > + items: > > + - const: dp1_hs_phy_irq > > + - const: dm1_hs_phy_irq > > + - const: dp2_hs_phy_irq > > + - const: dm2_hs_phy_irq > > + - const: dp3_hs_phy_irq > > + - const: dm4_hs_phy_irq > > + - const: dp4_hs_phy_irq > > + - const: dm4_hs_phy_irq > > + - const: ss1_phy_irq > > + - const: ss2_phy_irq > > + - const: pwr_event_1 > > + - const: pwr_event_2 > > + - const: pwr_event_3 > > + - const: pwr_event_4 > > The naming here is inconsistent and interrupts should not have "_irq" > suffixes (even if some of the current ones do for historical reasons). > > I believe these should be named > > pwr_event_1 > dp_hs_phy_1 > dm_hs_phy_1 > ss_phy_1 > > pwr_event_2 > dp_hs_phy_2 > dm_hs_phy_2 > ss_phy_2 > > pwr_event_3 > dp_hs_phy_3 > dm_hs_phy_3 > > pwr_event_4 > dp_hs_phy_4 > dm_hs_phy_4 > > or similar and be grouped by port while using the the > qcom,sc8280xp-dwc ordering for the individual lines. Perhaps the ordering you suggested is fine too, but I'd probably move the pwr_event ones first to match qcom,sc8280xp-dwc then, that is: pwr_event_1 pwr_event_2 pwr_event_3 pwr_event_4 dp_hs_phy_1 dm_hs_phy_1 dp_hs_phy_2 dm_hs_phy_2 dp_hs_phy_3 dm_hs_phy_3 dp_hs_phy_4 dm_hs_phy_4 ss_phy_1 ss_phy_2 so we have them grouped as pwr_event followed by HS and with SS last. > Side note: Please note how the above interrupt properties can also be > used to infer the number of HS and SS ports. Johan
