Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: usb: mt6360-tcpc: Drop interrupt-names

From: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
To: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
Cc: robh+dt@kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org,
	chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
	conor+dt@kernel.org, matthias.bgg@gmail.com, linux@roeck-us.net,
	heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com, cy_huang@richtek.com,
	linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: usb: mt6360-tcpc: Drop interrupt-names
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 16:18:25 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240124-confining-monologue-22ed69313cef@spud> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4fdbc3d8-3d44-4c2c-aae6-daa0b431e1c9@collabora.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1795 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 09:48:23AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 23/01/24 18:14, Conor Dooley ha scritto:
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:32:30AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > > Il 19/01/24 17:32, Conor Dooley ha scritto:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 10:41:04AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > > > > This IP has only one interrupt, hence interrupt-names is not necessary
> > > > > to have.
> > > > > Since there is no user yet, simply remove interrupt-names.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm a bit confused chief. Patch 2 in this series removes a user of this
> > > > property from a driver, so can you explain how this statement is true?
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe I need to drink a few cans of Monster and revisit this patchset?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > What I mean with "there is no user" is that there's no device tree with any
> > > mt6360-tcpc node upstream yet, so there is no meaningful ABI breakage.
> > > Different story would be if there was a device tree using this already, in
> > > which case, you can make a required property optional but not remove it.
> > 
> > Not every devicetree lives within the kernel.. If the driver is using
> > it, I'm not inclined to agree that it should be removed.
> 
> I get the point, but as far as I remember, it's not the first time that this
> kind of change is upstreamed.
> 
> I'm fine with keeping things as they are but, since my intention is to actually
> introduce an actual user of this binding upstream, and that actually depends on
> if this change is accepted or not (as I have to know whether I can omit adding
> the interrupt-names property or not)....
> 
> ....may I ask for more feedback/opinions from Rob and/or Krzk?

Sure, I am happy to be overruled if they disagree.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]