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

From: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
To: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@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: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 08:23:40 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201127142340.ei7o4zkg5trwcspy@chevron> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8885dd79-061b-82e3-1aeb-a318f7d8256d@ti.com>

On 09:46-20201124, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> 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.

I see that Grygorii is suggesting 1,3,4 to be pulled in. can you repost
with just the required patches alone and pick up the reviewed-bys?

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3  1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D