Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 8/9] spmi: pmic-arb: make interrupt support optional | From | Fenglin Wu <> | Date | Thu, 14 Oct 2021 11:20:57 +0800 |
| |
On 10/14/2021 3:38 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Fenglin Wu (2021-10-13 01:36:54) >> On 10/13/2021 1:41 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: >>> Quoting Fenglin Wu (2021-09-16 23:33:03) >>>> From: David Collins <collinsd@codeaurora.org> >>>> >>>> Make the support of PMIC peripheral interrupts optional for >>>> spmi-pmic-arb devices. This is useful in situations where >>>> SPMI address mapping is required without the need for IRQ >>>> support. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: David Collins <collinsd@codeaurora.org> >>>> Signed-off-by: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- >>> Is there a binding update? Can the binding be converted to YAML as well? >> This change doesn't add/update any dtsi properties but just checking if an >> existing property is present to decide if IRQ support is required, so no >> binding change is needed. > The property is now optional in the binding. Please update the binding. Right, thanks for pointing it out. I forgot that part. I will update the binding. How about only update the interrupt properties as optional in this series then I can come up with following patch to convert the binding to YAML format? > >>>> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c b/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c >>>> index 988204c..55fa981 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c >>>> @@ -1280,10 +1280,12 @@ static int spmi_pmic_arb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>> goto err_put_ctrl; >>>> } >>>> >>>> - pmic_arb->irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "periph_irq"); >>>> - if (pmic_arb->irq < 0) { >>>> - err = pmic_arb->irq; >>>> - goto err_put_ctrl; >>>> + if (of_find_property(pdev->dev.of_node, "interrupt-names", NULL)) { >>> I don't think we should be keying off of interrupt-names. Instead we >>> should be checking for something else. Maybe interrupt-controller >>> property? >> Sure, I can update it to check the presence of "interrupt-controller" >> property. > Ok.
| |