On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 09:48:23AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: > Il 23/01/24 18:14, Conor Dooley ha scritto: > > 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. > > I get the point, but as far as I remember, it's not the first time that this > kind of change is upstreamed. > > I'm fine with keeping things as they are but, since my intention is to actually > introduce an actual user of this binding upstream, and that actually depends on > if this change is accepted or not (as I have to know whether I can omit adding > the interrupt-names property or not).... > > ....may I ask for more feedback/opinions from Rob and/or Krzk? Sure, I am happy to be overruled if they disagree.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
