From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <521673FB.3040904@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:26:35 -0600 From: Stephen Warren MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: passing two interrupts two an I2C driver References: <520E3B8F.9010800@samsung.com> <520E7417.3090606@wwwdotorg.org> <20130819084227.GC3719@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <5212433E.4090802@wwwdotorg.org> <20130820084454.GT3719@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <52139873.1040703@wwwdotorg.org> <20130821085433.GZ3719@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <52160802.2070201@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <52160802.2070201@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Rob Herring Cc: Mark Rutland , Jacek Anaszewski , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-iio@vger.kernel.org" , Jonathan Cameron , "maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com" , "lars@metafoo.de" , "l.czerwinski@samsung.com" , Pawel Moll , "ian.campbell@citrix.com" , "s.nawrocki@samsung.com" List-ID: 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.