[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1471824960.5707.3.camel@aj.id.au>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 09:46:00 +0930
From: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] gpio: dt-bindings: Add documentation for Aspeed
GPIO controllers
On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 09:36 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:14:10PM +0930, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>
> > ---
> >
> > Since v1:
> >
> > Rob: I haven't added your Acked-by here as I've made the following changes and
> > wanted to get your input:
> >
> > * Remove interrupt-controller as an optional property
> > * Defer to interrupt-controller bindings document for sub-node properties
> >
> > I had a discussion with Joel about whether the interrupt-controller capability
> > should be optional and the conclusion was that it should always be configured
> > by the driver. This makes an optional interrupt-controller property feel
> > redundant (and possibly inaccurate if left out) so I've removed it.
> I don't follow. What do you mean byt "configured by the driver". If the
> block supports interrupts, then it should be marked as an
> interrupt-controller. It never should have been optional. The OS can
> ignore the interrupt properties if it chooses.
Right, clearly there was some confusion on my part. I will fix that up.
Thanks for clarifying.
Andrew
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists