From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joel Stanley Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] gpio: dt-bindings: Add documentation for Aspeed GPIO controllers Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 15:34:25 +0930 Message-ID: References: <20160819124414.24242-1-andrew@aj.id.au> <20160819124414.24242-5-andrew@aj.id.au> <20160819143641.GA19513@rob-hp-laptop> <1471824960.5707.3.camel@aj.id.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1471824960.5707.3.camel@aj.id.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Jeffery Cc: Rob Herring , Linus Walleij , Alexandre Courbot , Mark Rutland , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Jeremy Kerr , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Jeffery wrote: > On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 09:36 -0500, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:14:10PM +0930, Andrew Jeffery wrote: >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery >> > --- >> > >> > Since v1: >> > >> > Rob: I haven't added your Acked-by here as I've made the following changes and >> > wanted to get your input: >> > >> > * Remove interrupt-controller as an optional property >> > * Defer to interrupt-controller bindings document for sub-node properties >> > >> > I had a discussion with Joel about whether the interrupt-controller capability >> > should be optional and the conclusion was that it should always be configured >> > by the driver. This makes an optional interrupt-controller property feel >> > redundant (and possibly inaccurate if left out) so I've removed it. >> I don't follow. What do you mean byt "configured by the driver". If the >> block supports interrupts, then it should be marked as an >> interrupt-controller. It never should have been optional. The OS can >> ignore the interrupt properties if it chooses. > > Right, clearly there was some confusion on my part. I will fix that up. > Thanks for clarifying. > Thanks for clarifying this Rob. With this cleared up, Acked-by: Joel Stanley