On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 04:57:33PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 12:41:57PM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: > > Il 25/01/24 11:32, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto: > > > 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. > > > > > > > Thanks for the clarification. If USB maintainers want to take the driver part only > > without me resending this, I'd appreciate that. > > > > > The interrupt-names is not a required property in this binding anyway... :-) > > Having -names properties that are not required when the base property is > always seem so pointless to me, except in cases where they're not > required for the case where there's one item but required when there are > more than one. Ultimately they're pointless if not required since they > can't be relied on. I think dropping it from the driver is required for > correctness. Actually, looking at the binding again: | required: | - compatible | - interrupts | - interrupt-names It looks like it is a required property after all!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
