[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqLkVUSgL-r1YvdSOTQGeN0r4Co=NRxvX1WL6q6yt0zN6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 08:07:07 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc: Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimentel@...opsys.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: PCI: snps,dw-pcie: Drop "#interrupt-cells"
from example
On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 1:26 AM Manivannan Sadhasivam
<manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 03:32:16PM -0600, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote:
> > "#interrupt-cells" is not valid without a corresponding "interrupt-map"
> > or "interrupt-controller" property. As the example has neither, drop
> > "#interrupt-cells". This fixes a dtc interrupt_provider warning.
> >
>
> But the DWC controllers have an in-built MSI controller. Shouldn't we add
> 'interrrupt-controller' property then?
Why? Is that needed for the MSI controller to function? I don't think so.
Now we do have "interrupt-controller" present for a number of MSI
providers. I suspect that's there to get OF_DECLARE to work, but I
doubt we really need MSI controllers initialized early.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists