Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: usb: mt6360-tcpc: Drop interrupt-names

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 24/01/2024 09:48, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 23/01/24 18:14, Conor Dooley ha scritto:
>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:32:30AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>>> Il 19/01/24 17:32, Conor Dooley ha scritto:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 10:41:04AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>>>>> This IP has only one interrupt, hence interrupt-names is not necessary
>>>>> to have.
>>>>> Since there is no user yet, simply remove interrupt-names.
>>>>
>>>> I'm a bit confused chief. Patch 2 in this series removes a user of this
>>>> property from a driver, so can you explain how this statement is true?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I need to drink a few cans of Monster and revisit this patchset?
>>>>
>>>
>>> What I mean with "there is no user" is that there's no device tree with any
>>> mt6360-tcpc node upstream yet, so there is no meaningful ABI breakage.
>>> Different story would be if there was a device tree using this already, in
>>> which case, you can make a required property optional but not remove it.
>>
>> Not every devicetree lives within the kernel.. If the driver is using
>> it, I'm not inclined to agree that it should be removed.
> 
> I get the point, but as far as I remember, it's not the first time that this
> kind of change is upstreamed.
> 
> I'm fine with keeping things as they are but, since my intention is to actually
> introduce an actual user of this binding upstream, and that actually depends on
> if this change is accepted or not (as I have to know whether I can omit adding
> the interrupt-names property or not)....
> 
> ....may I ask for more feedback/opinions from Rob and/or Krzk?

Driver is the user and this is an old binding (released!), thus there
can be out-of-kernel users already.

Minor cleanup is not really a reason to affect ABI. You could deprecate
it, though. Driver change is fine.

Best regards,
Krzysztof