Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 8/9] spmi: pmic-arb: make interrupt support optional

[Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com>]

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.