Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Mon, 3 Nov 2014 18:33:58 +0000 | From | Mark Rutland <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] of/irq: Drop obsolete 'interrupts' vs 'interrupts-extended' text |
| |
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 05:07:53PM +0000, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 3:15 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 11:35:31PM +0000, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >> a9ecdc0fdc54 ("of/irq: Fix lookup to use 'interrupts-extended' property > >> first") updated the description to say that: > >> > >> - Both 'interrupts' and 'interrupts-extended' may be present > >> - Software should prefer 'interrupts-extended' > >> - Software that doesn't comprehend 'interrupts-extended' may use > >> 'interrupts' > >> > >> But there is still a paragraph at the end that prohibits having both and > >> says 'interrupts' should be preferred. > >> > >> Remove the contradictory text. > >> > >> Fixes: a9ecdc0fdc54 ("of/irq: Fix lookup to use 'interrupts-extended' property first") > >> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com> > >> CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # v3.13+ > >> --- > >> .../bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt | 4 ---- > >> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt > >> index ce6a1a072028..8a3c40829899 100644 > >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt > >> @@ -30,10 +30,6 @@ should only be used when a device has multiple interrupt parents. > >> Example: > >> interrupts-extended = <&intc1 5 1>, <&intc2 1 0>; > >> > >> -A device node may contain either "interrupts" or "interrupts-extended", but not > >> -both. If both properties are present, then the operating system should log an > >> -error and use only the data in "interrupts". > > > > Why not update the binding to explain that interrupts-extended is > > typically preferred? > > I'm only trying to fix the contradictory text. It's fine with me if > somebody wants to go farther and prefer interrupts-extended (though it > does look like "interrupts" will be more concise for machines with a > single interrupt controller).
Ah, my bad. I had skimmed this and failed to notice that the commit message makes it very clear that the wording I want is already present, and it is just the dangling contradiction you are removing.
Sorry about that. Please ignore my original comment, this looks fine as-is.
Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Thanks, Mark.
| |