[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <210b0e5a-767b-c285-62e2-23de19bd3cf1@xilinx.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 08:00:49 +0100
From: Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Michal Simek" <monstr@...str.eu>, git <git@...inx.com>,
Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: zynq: Add address-cells property to interrupt
controllers
On 2/1/21 6:41 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 8:27 AM Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com> wrote:
>>
>> The commit 3eb619b2f7d8 ("scripts/dtc: Update to upstream version
>> v1.6.0-11-g9d7888cbf19c") updated dtc version which also contained DTC
>> commit
>> "81e0919a3e21 checks: Add interrupt provider test"
>> where reasons for this checking are mentioned as
>> "A missing #address-cells property is less critical, but creates
>> ambiguities when used in interrupt-map properties, so warn about this as
>> well now."
>>
>> Add address-cells property to gic and gpio nodes to get rid of this warning.
>> The similar change has been done for ZynqMP too.
>
> FYI, we're going to make this check dependent on having an
> interrupt-map property. So adding these isn't necessary.
Good to know. Is there going to be report if interrupt-map doesn't
exist? Which can end up with reverting these changes?
Thanks,
Michal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists