Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:1;
Message-ID: <8922b2f1-7869-409c-8974-d2560d72f454@quicinc.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Sep 2023 16:01:24 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/4] dt-bindings: thermal: qcom-tsens: Add ipq5018
 compatible
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
        <agross@kernel.org>, <andersson@kernel.org>,
        <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>, <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>,
        <robh+dt@kernel.org>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        <conor+dt@kernel.org>, <thara.gopinath@gmail.com>,
        <rafael@kernel.org>, <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
References: <20230922115116.2748804-1-srichara@win-platform-upstream01.qualcomm.com>
 <20230922115116.2748804-2-srichara@win-platform-upstream01.qualcomm.com>
 <f4fa94ab-78fb-d01b-7188-c498ec3053ff@linaro.org>
 <21caae64-b8db-ed1f-2275-a7279227cf92@quicinc.com>
 <a225833f-e645-48cc-a0e9-103999064548@linaro.org>
From:   Sricharan Ramabadhran <quic_srichara@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <a225833f-e645-48cc-a0e9-103999064548@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 9/25/2023 12:16 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 25/09/2023 04:06, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9/23/2023 5:14 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 22/09/2023 13:51, Sricharan R wrote:
>>>> From: Sricharan Ramabadhran <quic_srichara@quicinc.com>
>>>>
>>>> IPQ5018 has tsens v1.0 block with 4 sensors and 1 interrupt.
>>>
>>> Then why do you allow two interrupts?
>>>
>>    infact there is only one interrupt. Will fix in the binding
>>    description.
> 
> Description? So you still allow two interrupts? No, this must be
> constrained in allOf:if:then.
> 

  ok, it should be fine to add this new compatible to the existing
  allof:if:then block of v1 targets ? (Because they also have same
  single interrupt (uplow) constraint)

Regards,
  Sricharan