Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220517205341.536587-1-robimarko@gmail.com> <2905b9ae-df66-eb12-60fd-306ea2d3d626@linaro.org>
 <CAOX2RU4dH-iUMY8yebEEgdJRqm37AHBMH135YkNsnDJMPZCbPg@mail.gmail.com> <bc13e57f-9701-80c9-8c7a-e491fbcfd181@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <bc13e57f-9701-80c9-8c7a-e491fbcfd181@linaro.org>
From:   Robert Marko <robimarko@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 May 2022 16:00:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOX2RU6sW5x-Ufbgz5pxWRnOMj=jrTXqHuba5USKgBnfc+KeJA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] dt-bindings: regulator: qcom,spmi-regulator:
 Convert to dtschema
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        lgirdwood@gmail.com, broonie@kernel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Devicetree List <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 18 May 2022 at 15:34, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 18/05/2022 15:25, Robert Marko wrote:
> >> I think we misunderstood each other. Old bindings indeed did not require
> >> the interrupts, although if present they should be always defined.
> >> Therefore here you should specify number of items and their names.
> >
> > Yeah, I think we are misunderstanding each other.
> >
> > Old text-based bindings specified the interrupts, but no naming or
> > number was enforced,
> > so I looked into the driver to see what is going on.
> > Only pm8941 has interrupts defined in the driver and DTS, so I added
> > those based on compatible
> > matching, the same as with supplies.
> > My logic was that it was only valid for interrupts to be described if
> > PM8941 was used as describing
> > interrupts for other regulator models will do nothing.
>
> Indeed, you're right, thanks for explanation. Your patch in such case is
> correct way of conversion but allows any number of interrupts with any
> names, so it's to relaxed. Maybe then better go to previous version,
> where these interrupts were defined only for one variant. For other
> variants they would fail on as unevaluated?

Yeah, that was my intention with not having interrupts as the generic property.
I will remove them as generic property and only allow them per
compatible, cause I tested
adding interrupts to a PMIC DTS that does not allow them and make
dtbs_check will
warn about those being unevaluated.

Regards,
Robert
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof