On 24/11/20 6:51 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:

On 09:45-20201123, Sekhar Nori wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

The main reason I commented - is hope to get some clarification from DT maintainers.
90% of interrupt-controller nodes do not have #address-cells and I never seen in in GPIO nodes
(most often is present in PCI and GIC nodes).
and nobody seems fixing it. So, if we are going to move this direction it's reasonable to get clarification to be sure.

And there is no "never" here - #address-cells always can be added if really required.

OK - as a GPIO node, but as an interrupt-controller node, I was
looking at [1] and wondering if that was the precedence.

Yes, will be good to get direction from the DT maintainers on this
topic.

Shall I respin this series with 2/4 dropped while we wait for decision
on this?

#address-cells warnings on interrupt controller can perhaps be handled
all at once (there are many of those in existing DT anyway).

GPIO is basic support and holds up many other modules (like MMC/SD).

There are'nt too many new patches in my queue that depends on GPIO, I'd
rather not introduce new warnings unless we are completely at a
stalemate. I'd rather use this opportunity to understand where what we
need to be doing.

GPIO was originally submitted as part of 8  patch series titled "[PATCH
0/8] Add support for UHS modes in TI's J721e and J7200 boards"

Rest of those patches need to be resubmitted after GPIO is accepted.

Can you apply patch 1/4 at least. Its fairly non-controversial. It will
help reduce patch backlog and fix some warnings too.

Thanks,
Sekhar

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel