On 24/01/2024 09:48, 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? Driver is the user and this is an old binding (released!), thus there can be out-of-kernel users already. Minor cleanup is not really a reason to affect ABI. You could deprecate it, though. Driver change is fine. Best regards, Krzysztof
