[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e396cf20-8598-4437-b635-09a4a737a772@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 13:01:20 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof WilczyĆski <kw@...ux.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] dt-bindings: PCI: qcom: Do not require
'msi-map-mask'
On 12/02/2024 17:50, Johan Hovold wrote:
> Whether the 'msi-map-mask' property is needed or not depends on how the
> MSI interrupts are mapped and it should therefore not be described as
> required.
I could imagine that on all devices the interrupts are mapped in a way
you need to provide msi-map-mask. IOW, can there be a Qualcomm platform
without msi-map-mask?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists