Message ID | 20230827005920.898719-1-dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | ARM: dts: qcom: cleanup PMIC usage | expand |
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 at 14:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 27/08/2023 12:42, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 at 11:35, Krzysztof Kozlowski > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > >> > >> On 27/08/2023 02:58, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >>> Allow using interrupts-extended, which is a preferred form of interrupts > >>> specification compared to the interrupt-parrent + interrupts pair. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> > >>> --- > >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml | 10 +++++++++- > >>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml > >>> index 7fe3875a5996..33d9615e63c8 100644 > >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml > >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml > >>> @@ -37,6 +37,9 @@ properties: > >>> interrupts: > >>> maxItems: 1 > >>> > >>> + interrupts-extended: > >>> + maxItems: 1 > >> > >> The entire patch is not needed. At least should not be needed. What > >> problem are you trying to solve here? > > > > The main problem is the next chunk, which (currently) explicitly > > requires `interrupts' property. My goal is to allow > > `interrupts-extended' in addition to `interrupts'. > > They are allowed. Why do you think they aren't? That's why I don't > understand what real problem is here. qcom-pm8xxx.yaml lists `interrupts' property under the `required' clause. So I can not simply replace it with `interrupts-extended'
On 27/08/2023 14:57, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The entire patch is not needed. At least should not be needed. What >>>>>> problem are you trying to solve here? >>>>> >>>>> The main problem is the next chunk, which (currently) explicitly >>>>> requires `interrupts' property. My goal is to allow >>>>> `interrupts-extended' in addition to `interrupts'. >>>> >>>> They are allowed. Why do you think they aren't? That's why I don't >>>> understand what real problem is here. >>> >>> qcom-pm8xxx.yaml lists `interrupts' property under the `required' >>> clause. So I can not simply replace it with `interrupts-extended' >> >> Since when? So again: The entire patch is not needed. > > Hmm, interesting. I'm pretty sure that I saw the issue, but now I can > no longer reproduce it. Maybe I misinterpreted some other warning > which I saw while this was WIP. > I see that it is handled by the `fixup_interrupts` in dtschema itself. If interrupts were brought by some other schema and that one did not evaluate, then you could see errors about interrupt-extended. But that's not the case here. Best regards, Krzysztof