On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 at 15:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski
[off-list ref] wrote:

On 27/08/2023 13:48, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 at 14:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 27/08/2023 12:42, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 at 11:35, Krzysztof Kozlowski
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 27/08/2023 02:58, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:

quoted

Allow using interrupts-extended, which is a preferred form of interrupts
specification compared to the interrupt-parrent + interrupts pair.

Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <redacted>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml | 10 +++++++++-
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml
index 7fe3875a5996..33d9615e63c8 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml

@@ -37,6 +37,9 @@ properties:
   interrupts:
     maxItems: 1

+  interrupts-extended:
+    maxItems: 1

The entire patch is not needed. At least should not be needed. What
problem are you trying to solve here?

The main problem is the next chunk, which (currently) explicitly
requires `interrupts' property. My goal is to allow
`interrupts-extended' in addition to `interrupts'.

They are allowed. Why do you think they aren't? That's why I don't
understand what real problem is here.

qcom-pm8xxx.yaml lists `interrupts' property under the `required'
clause. So I can not simply replace it with `interrupts-extended'

Since when? So again: The entire patch is not needed.

Hmm, interesting. I'm pretty sure that I saw the issue, but now I can
no longer reproduce it. Maybe I misinterpreted some other warning
which I saw while this was WIP.
I see that it is handled by the `fixup_interrupts` in dtschema itself.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry