Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: dts: ti: k3: squelch warnings regarding no #address-cells for interrupt-controller

From: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>
To: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
Cc: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>,
	Device Tree Mailing List <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com>,
	Linux ARM Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@ti.com>,
	Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com>,
	Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: dts: ti: k3: squelch warnings regarding no #address-cells for interrupt-controller
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 09:46:53 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8885dd79-061b-82e3-1aeb-a318f7d8256d@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201124012100.fq7w7bjxvewuhbt2@shirt>

On 24/11/20 6:51 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 09:45-20201123, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>>> The main reason I commented - is hope to get some clarification from DT maintainers.
>>>> 90% of interrupt-controller nodes do not have #address-cells and I never seen in in GPIO nodes
>>>> (most often is present in PCI and GIC nodes).
>>>> and nobody seems fixing it. So, if we are going to move this direction it's reasonable to get clarification to be sure.
>>>>
>>>> And there is no "never" here - #address-cells always can be added if really required.
>>>
>>>
>>> OK - as a GPIO node, but as an interrupt-controller node, I was
>>> looking at [1] and wondering if that was the precedence.
>>>
>>> Yes, will be good to get direction from the DT maintainers on this
>>> topic.
>>
>> Shall I respin this series with 2/4 dropped while we wait for decision
>> on this?
>>
>> #address-cells warnings on interrupt controller can perhaps be handled
>> all at once (there are many of those in existing DT anyway).
>>
>> GPIO is basic support and holds up many other modules (like MMC/SD).
> 
> 
> There are'nt too many new patches in my queue that depends on GPIO, I'd
> rather not introduce new warnings unless we are completely at a
> stalemate. I'd rather use this opportunity to understand where what we
> need to be doing.
GPIO was originally submitted as part of 8  patch series titled "[PATCH
0/8] Add support for UHS modes in TI's J721e and J7200 boards"

Rest of those patches need to be resubmitted after GPIO is accepted.

Can you apply patch 1/4 at least. Its fairly non-controversial. It will
help reduce patch backlog and fix some warnings too.

Thanks,
Sekhar