Re: [PATCH v4 03/38] dt-bindings: mfd: qcom-pm8xxx: allow using interrupts-extended

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

On 27/08/2023 13:48, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 at 14:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 27/08/2023 12:42, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 at 11:35, Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 27/08/2023 02:58, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>> Allow using interrupts-extended, which is a preferred form of interrupts
>>>>> specification compared to the interrupt-parrent + interrupts pair.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml | 10 +++++++++-
>>>>>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml
>>>>> index 7fe3875a5996..33d9615e63c8 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml
>>>>> @@ -37,6 +37,9 @@ properties:
>>>>>    interrupts:
>>>>>      maxItems: 1
>>>>>
>>>>> +  interrupts-extended:
>>>>> +    maxItems: 1
>>>>
>>>> The entire patch is not needed. At least should not be needed. What
>>>> problem are you trying to solve here?
>>>
>>> The main problem is the next chunk, which (currently) explicitly
>>> requires `interrupts' property. My goal is to allow
>>> `interrupts-extended' in addition to `interrupts'.
>>
>> They are allowed. Why do you think they aren't? That's why I don't
>> understand what real problem is here.
> 
> qcom-pm8xxx.yaml lists `interrupts' property under the `required'
> clause. So I can not simply replace it with `interrupts-extended'

Since when? So again: The entire patch is not needed.


Best regards,
Krzysztof