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

[Fenglin Wu]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    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.