Re: [PATCH] of/irq: Drop obsolete 'interrupts' vs 'interrupts-extended' text

[Mark Rutland]

On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 05:07:53PM +0000, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 3:15 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 11:35:31PM +0000, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> a9ecdc0fdc54 ("of/irq: Fix lookup to use 'interrupts-extended' property
> >> first") updated the description to say that:
> >>
> >>   - Both 'interrupts' and 'interrupts-extended' may be present
> >>   - Software should prefer 'interrupts-extended'
> >>   - Software that doesn't comprehend 'interrupts-extended' may use
> >>     'interrupts'
> >>
> >> But there is still a paragraph at the end that prohibits having both and
> >> says 'interrupts' should be preferred.
> >>
> >> Remove the contradictory text.
> >>
> >> Fixes: a9ecdc0fdc54 ("of/irq: Fix lookup to use 'interrupts-extended' property first")
> >> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    # v3.13+
> >> ---
> >>  .../bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt   |    4 ----
> >>  1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt
> >> index ce6a1a072028..8a3c40829899 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt
> >> @@ -30,10 +30,6 @@ should only be used when a device has multiple interrupt parents.
> >>    Example:
> >>       interrupts-extended = <&intc1 5 1>, <&intc2 1 0>;
> >>
> >> -A device node may contain either "interrupts" or "interrupts-extended", but not
> >> -both. If both properties are present, then the operating system should log an
> >> -error and use only the data in "interrupts".
> >
> > Why not update the binding to explain that interrupts-extended is
> > typically preferred?
> 
> I'm only trying to fix the contradictory text.  It's fine with me if
> somebody wants to go farther and prefer interrupts-extended (though it
> does look like "interrupts" will be more concise for machines with a
> single interrupt controller).

Ah, my bad. I had skimmed this and failed to notice that the commit
message makes it very clear that the wording I want is already present,
and it is just the dangling contradiction you are removing.

Sorry about that. Please ignore my original comment, this looks fine
as-is.

Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>

Thanks,
Mark.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/