From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECBEAC433E6 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 14:07:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC50C23772 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 14:07:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727235AbhAHOHi (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jan 2021 09:07:38 -0500 Received: from fllv0016.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.142]:36238 "EHLO fllv0016.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725793AbhAHOHh (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jan 2021 09:07:37 -0500 Received: from fllv0035.itg.ti.com ([10.64.41.0]) by fllv0016.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 108E5o22091577; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 08:05:50 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1610114750; bh=7QUxdJubf6npHB6XXysEgpQV+ARRLTU9YbZ45EDawGs=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Wx+e8zAn/GaP9GFC8ofyKGFEDS1CiHHIFKyNMQmTjWyh7OD73Vmc2BVwqK/Z3iX78 otxF3oxkoc7ZZI3Lz4+WomzE6vCpwyi5TOXkaIGU9VPRICE2JZv6Ci2rjvyOVBvqdN 9+y3tHs3yLZWJP3jtdiRlCWMm1473CaLeTTyPzzc= Received: from DFLE102.ent.ti.com (dfle102.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.23]) by fllv0035.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 108E5oh1058228 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 8 Jan 2021 08:05:50 -0600 Received: from DFLE111.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.32) by DFLE102.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 08:05:50 -0600 Received: from fllv0039.itg.ti.com (10.64.41.19) by DFLE111.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 08:05:50 -0600 Received: from [10.24.69.20] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by fllv0039.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 108E5lEi108720; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 08:05:48 -0600 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: dts: ti: k3: squelch warnings regarding no #address-cells for interrupt-controller To: Nishanth Menon , Sekhar Nori , Device Tree Mailing List , Rob Herring CC: Grygorii Strashko , Linux ARM Mailing List , , Faiz Abbas , Andre Przywara References: <20201117161942.38754-1-nsekhar@ti.com> <20201117161942.38754-3-nsekhar@ti.com> <20201118151259.kpag44djji4ssiup@eldest> <18e41dba-a3dd-308a-605e-63b76ca638e5@ti.com> <20201119132829.sr435jf6s4275q4i@boxlike> <313a9cd5-7411-4ae1-cde4-42a2c18d11e6@ti.com> <20201124012100.fq7w7bjxvewuhbt2@shirt> <8885dd79-061b-82e3-1aeb-a318f7d8256d@ti.com> <20201127142340.ei7o4zkg5trwcspy@chevron> From: Lokesh Vutla Message-ID: <2c6df02e-e7a8-fa48-27bc-140bfa500360@ti.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 19:35:46 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201127142340.ei7o4zkg5trwcspy@chevron> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Rob, Grygorii, On 27/11/20 7:53 pm, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 09:46-20201124, Sekhar Nori wrote: >> On 24/11/20 6:51 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>> On 09:45-20201123, Sekhar Nori wrote: >>>>>> The main reason I commented - is hope to get some clarification from DT maintainers. >>>>>> 90% of interrupt-controller nodes do not have #address-cells and I never seen in in GPIO nodes >>>>>> (most often is present in PCI and GIC nodes). >>>>>> and nobody seems fixing it. So, if we are going to move this direction it's reasonable to get clarification to be sure. >>>>>> >>>>>> And there is no "never" here - #address-cells always can be added if really required. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> OK - as a GPIO node, but as an interrupt-controller node, I was >>>>> looking at [1] and wondering if that was the precedence. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, will be good to get direction from the DT maintainers on this >>>>> topic. >>>> Is there a conclusion on this topic? Without adding address-cells for interrupt controller we will be introducing new warning for all the new nodes we are adding. Thanks and regards, Lokesh