Re: [PATCH] of/irq: Drop obsolete 'interrupts' vs 'interrupts-extended' text

[Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>]

On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 11:35:31PM +0000, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> a9ecdc0fdc54 ("of/irq: Fix lookup to use 'interrupts-extended' property
> first") updated the description to say that:
> 
>   - Both 'interrupts' and 'interrupts-extended' may be present
>   - Software should prefer 'interrupts-extended'
>   - Software that doesn't comprehend 'interrupts-extended' may use
>     'interrupts'
> 
> But there is still a paragraph at the end that prohibits having both and
> says 'interrupts' should be preferred.
> 
> Remove the contradictory text.
> 
> Fixes: a9ecdc0fdc54 ("of/irq: Fix lookup to use 'interrupts-extended' property first")
> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
> CC: stable@vger.kernel.org	# v3.13+
> ---
>  .../bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt   |    4 ----
>  1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt
> index ce6a1a072028..8a3c40829899 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt
> @@ -30,10 +30,6 @@ should only be used when a device has multiple interrupt parents.
>    Example:
>  	interrupts-extended = <&intc1 5 1>, <&intc2 1 0>;
>  
> -A device node may contain either "interrupts" or "interrupts-extended", but not
> -both. If both properties are present, then the operating system should log an
> -error and use only the data in "interrupts".

Why not update the binding to explain that interrupts-extended is
typically preferred?

Mark.