Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: fsl,irqsteer: add S32N79 support
From: Ciprian Marian Costea
Date: Thu Mar 05 2026 - 08:32:55 EST
On 3/5/2026 2:39 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 05/03/2026 13:25, Ciprian Marian Costea wrote:
On 3/5/2026 2:12 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 05/03/2026 13:02, Ciprian Marian Costea wrote:
On 2/26/2026 9:31 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 02:38:52PM +0100, Ciprian Costea wrote:
From: Ciprian Marian Costea <ciprianmarian.costea@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Add compatible string for the interrupt steering controller used in NXP
S32N79 SoC.
The S32N79 SoC differs from the i.MX version by not implementing the
CHANCTRL register, but otherwise maintains the same programming model and
register layout.
Co-developed-by: Larisa Grigore <larisa.grigore@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Larisa Grigore <larisa.grigore@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Ciprian Marian Costea <ciprianmarian.costea@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/fsl,irqsteer.yaml | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/fsl,irqsteer.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/fsl,irqsteer.yaml
index 5c768c1e159c..caf3e4a1f26f 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/fsl,irqsteer.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/fsl,irqsteer.yaml
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ properties:
- fsl,imx94-irqsteer
- fsl,imx95-irqsteer
- const: fsl,imx-irqsteer
+ - const: nxp,s32n79-irqsteer
So that should be part of enum with the first entry.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Hello Krzysztof,
Thanks for your review. Regarding this change, I was thinking since
S32N79 irqsteer does not implement the 'CHANCTRL' register, it should
not fallback to 'fsl,imx-irqsteer'. If the driver were to match on the
fallback compatible, it would attempt to write to the non-existent
CHANCTRL register.
Am I wrong?
No clue, I did not say anything about fallbacks.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Indeed, but your suggestion of moving 'nxp,s32n79-irqsteer' under the
enum would fallback on 'fsl,imx-irqsteer'.
Am I misunderstanding your suggestion ?
Open the code. What is the first entry?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Sorry, the enum reference confused me.
Is the following in accordance with your suggestion?
oneOf:
- enum:
- fsl,imx-irqsteer
- nxp,s32n79-irqsteer
- items:
- enum:
...
- const: fsl,imx-irqsteer
Best regards,
Ciprian