| Message ID | 20230827005920.898719-4-dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ARM: dts: qcom: cleanup PMIC usage | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| robh/checkpatch | success | |
| robh/patch-applied | success | |
| robh/dtbs-check | warning | build log |
| robh/dt-meta-schema | success |
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? Best regards, Krzysztof
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'.
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. Best regards, Krzysztof
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'
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
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 at 15:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > 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. Hmm, interesting. I'm pretty sure that I saw the issue, but now I can no longer reproduce it. Maybe I misinterpreted some other warning which I saw while this was WIP. I see that it is handled by the `fixup_interrupts` in dtschema itself.
On 27/08/2023 14:57, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. > > Hmm, interesting. I'm pretty sure that I saw the issue, but now I can > no longer reproduce it. Maybe I misinterpreted some other warning > which I saw while this was WIP. > I see that it is handled by the `fixup_interrupts` in dtschema itself. If interrupts were brought by some other schema and that one did not evaluate, then you could see errors about interrupt-extended. But that's not the case here. Best regards, Krzysztof
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 + '#interrupt-cells': const: 2 @@ -75,11 +78,16 @@ patternProperties: type: object $ref: /schemas/iio/adc/qcom,pm8018-adc.yaml# +oneOf: + - required: + - interrupts + - required: + - interrupts-extended + required: - compatible - '#address-cells' - '#size-cells' - - interrupts - '#interrupt-cells' - interrupt-controller
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(-)