On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:32:30AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: > Il 19/01/24 17:32, Conor Dooley ha scritto: > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 10:41:04AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: > > > This IP has only one interrupt, hence interrupt-names is not necessary > > > to have. > > > Since there is no user yet, simply remove interrupt-names. > > > > I'm a bit confused chief. Patch 2 in this series removes a user of this > > property from a driver, so can you explain how this statement is true? > > > > Maybe I need to drink a few cans of Monster and revisit this patchset? > > > > What I mean with "there is no user" is that there's no device tree with any > mt6360-tcpc node upstream yet, so there is no meaningful ABI breakage. > Different story would be if there was a device tree using this already, in > which case, you can make a required property optional but not remove it. Not every devicetree lives within the kernel.. If the driver is using it, I'm not inclined to agree that it should be removed.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
