From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: [PATCH] of/irq: Drop obsolete 'interrupts' vs 'interrupts-extended' text Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 10:06:07 -0800 Message-ID: <5457C40F.8050407@gmail.com> References: <20141101233531.4958.96713.stgit@bhelgaas-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <20141103101516.GA29621@leverpostej> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20141103101516.GA29621@leverpostej> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Rutland , Bjorn Helgaas Cc: "grant.likely@linaro.org" , Rob Herring , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Brian Norris , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 11/03/2014 02:15 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > 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 >> 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? Does not the following: "Nodes that describe devices which generate interrupts must contain an "interrupts" property, an "interrupts-extended" property, or both. If both are present, the latter should take precedence; the former may be provided simply for compatibility with software that does not recognize the latter." already makes it clear that 'interrupts-extended' is the preferred way to represent interrupts? -- Florian