Re: passing two interrupts two an I2C driver

[Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>]

On 08/22/2013 06:45 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 08/21/2013 03:54 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
...
>> We should fix the binding documents to make clear which bindings require
>> their reg properties at fixed indexes, and those which allow for
>> arbitrarily ordered named reg entries. Named reg entries are really
>> useful for blocks with optional components, and given we have drivers
>> using them, they're already mandatory for some bindings.
> 
> No, we should fix the bindings that have arbitrarily ordered reg
> properties. There is no obvious reg examples of this that I see from a
> quick scan of dts files.
> 
> There is this questionable use of "empty" for interrupt-names:
> 
> arch/arm/boot/dts/imx23.dtsi:
> 	interrupts = <0 14 20 0
> 			13 13 13 13>;
> 	interrupt-names = "empty", "ssp0", "ssp1", "empty",
> 			"gpmi0", "gpmi1", "gpmi2", "gpmi3";
> 

Well, there's been an assertion that bindings that define an ordered
interrupts property shouldn't have a interrupt-names property, and
bindings that define interrupt-names entries explicitly don't require a
specific order of entries in the interrupts property.

I assume from your statement, you don't agree, and think that interrupts
must always be in a specific order, even if interrupt-names exists?

If so, that'd make interrupt-names at least a bit useless and at worst
horribly misleading, since people will assume it defines the order and
that the order can be arbitrary.