[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aUAZfcMbHD+BHNSi@lsv051416.swis.nl-cdc01.nxp.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 15:21:49 +0100
From: Jan Petrous <jan.petrous@....nxp.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Chester Lin <chester62515@...il.com>,
Matthias Brugger <mbrugger@...e.com>,
Ghennadi Procopciuc <ghennadi.procopciuc@....nxp.com>,
NXP S32 Linux Team <s32@....com>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
imx@...ts.linux.dev, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 4/4] stmmac: s32: enable multi irqs mode
On Sun, Dec 14, 2025 at 11:37:51PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2025 at 11:15:40PM +0100, Jan Petrous via B4 Relay wrote:
> > From: "Jan Petrous (OSS)" <jan.petrous@....nxp.com>
> >
> > Signalize support for multi irq mode.
> >
> > >From now, if yoused old DT node, without channel IRQs set,
> > the driver fails to init with the following error:
> >
> > [4.925420] s32-dwmac 4033c000.ethernet eth0: stmmac_request_irq_multi_msi: alloc rx-0 MSI -6 (error: -22)
>
> Sorry, but that is not acceptable. You cannot break old DT blobs.
>
> Please reverse the logic. If you find all the needed properties in DT
> enable STMMAC_FLAG_MULTI_MSI_EN. If none of the properties are there,
> continue using one interrupt, and if only some of the needed
> properties are there but some are missing, then you can error out with
> EINVAL, because the DT blob is invalid.
>
Yeh, that was the main reason of marking it as RFC, I was not sure
if I can break old DT blobs or not.
Thanks for answer. I will change the procedure to stay
backward compatible.
/Jan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists