Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:21:48 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
To:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
Cc:     Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, clement.leger@bootlin.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: microchip: atmel,at91rm9200-tcb: remove
 mandatory interrupts property
Message-ID: <YgZw/IB1V7NTRUJQ@robh.at.kernel.org>
References: <20220204081446.474991-1-eugen.hristev@microchip.com>
 <Yfz15ta50G5WC158@piout.net>
 <e939a0df-052c-43a6-8be6-51848d3fe5e5@microchip.com>
 <Yf0Bkh4pXKORmNkG@piout.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yf0Bkh4pXKORmNkG@piout.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 11:36:02AM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 04/02/2022 10:28:43+0000, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
> > On 2/4/22 11:46 AM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > > On 04/02/2022 10:14:46+0200, Eugen Hristev wrote:
> > >> The timer block can be used only to be read and to measure time in a polling
> > >> fashion. This can be used by Linux like this for example, or it can be used
> > >> by different projects which do not have interrupt controllers, or do not
> > >> wish to enable them (e.g. U-boot).
> > >> As DT is ABI, the binding should relate to all possible use cases and describe
> > >> the hardware and the requirements.
> > >> The interrupt is not a hard requirement for the timer to function in a
> > >> specific way.
> > >> Thus, choose to remove the interrupts property from the mandatory list of
> > >> properties.
> > >>
> > > 
> > > The correct hardware description is that the interrupt is present on the
> > > IP. Having software behave differently depending on the presence of that
> > > property is configuration, not hardware description.
> > 
> > I agree. The interrupt is present on the IP, thus the property exists 
> > and it's described.
> > However, the interrupt is not mandatory for IP operations. Thus it 
> > should not be in the list of mandatory properties.
> > 
> 
> If the interrupt is always present, it is mandatory, it doesn't matter
> whether is is used or necessary to get the IP to work.

Agreed.