[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e8fd0340-da21-0cf7-7ec3-a3f278716c15@microchip.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2023 12:09:58 +0000
From: <Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com>
To: <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
<Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>, <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
<daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<wim@...ux-watchdog.org>, <linux@...ck-us.net>
CC: <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: timer: atmel,at91sam9260-pit: convert
to yaml
On 09.06.2023 13:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
[ ... ]
>
>>>> + properties:
>>>> + clocks:
>>>> + minItems: 2
>>>> + clock-names:
>>>> + items:
>>>> + - const: pclk
>>>> + - const: gclk
>>>
>>> interrupts? They are still required, so why no description here?
>>
>> It was here in the previous versions but Conor suggested to remove it as it
>> was nothing specific about this description. For the if-then branch I kept
>> it to specify that the interrupt is share with other devices. In this
>> branch the interrupt is only for the timer itself. With this, would you
>> still prefer to add it back?
>
> I just don't understand why interrupts are in one arm of the if: and not
> in the other.
>
As previously mentioned, Conor suggested to have it like this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists