On 23/07/2025 10:08, Ryan Chen wrote:

quoted

Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: aspeed: Add
parent node compatibles and refine documentation

On 22/07/2025 11:51, Ryan Chen wrote:

quoted

+  INTC0 is used to assert GIC if interrupt in INTC1 asserted.
+  INTC1 is used to assert INTC0 if interrupt of modules asserted.
+  +-----+   +---------+
+  | GIC |---|  INTC0  |
+  +-----+   +---------+
+            +---------+
+            |         |---module0
+            | INTC0_0 |---module1
+            |         |---...
+            +---------+---module31
+            |---....  |
+            +---------+
+            |         |     +---------+
+            | INTC0_11| +---| INTC1   |
+            |         |     +---------+
+            +---------+     +---------+---module0
+                            | INTC1_0 |---module1
+                            |         |---...
+                            +---------+---module31
+                            ...
+                            +---------+---module0
+                            | INTC1_5 |---module1
+                            |         |---...
+                            +---------+---module31

You binding also said intc1 is the parent of intc-ic, so where is here intc-ic?

This diagram and new binding do not match at all.

The corresponded compatible is following.

  +-----+   +---------+
  | GIC |---|  INTC0  | -> (parent : aspeed,ast2700-intc0)
  +-----+   +---------+
            +---------+
            |        |---module0
            | INTC0_0 |---module1
			(child : aspeed,ast2700-intc-ic)
            |        |---...
            +---------+---module31
            |---....  |
            +---------+
            |         |    					 +---------+
            | INTC0_11 | +----------------------------	| INTC1   |  -> -> (parent : aspeed,ast2700-intc1)

AGAIN (second time): that's not what your binding said.

Your binding is explicit here, which is what we want in general. It says
that inct1 is one of the parents of intc-ic.

Let me be clear, because you will be dragging this talk with irrelevant
arguments forever - changing this binding is close to no. If you come
with correct arguments, maybe would work. But the main point is that you
probably do not have to even change the binding to achieve proper
hardware description. Work on that.

Best regards,
Krzysztof