Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: loongson,liointc: Fix warnings about liointc-2.0

[Marc Zyngier]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 04:59:20 +0100,
Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 在 2023/8/25 20:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski 写道:
> [...]
> > How did you sneak this property? The version - v2 - which was reviewed
> > by Rob:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20190905144316.12527-7-jiaxun.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx/
> > did not have it.
> > 
> > Now v3 suddenly appears with Rob's review and this property:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20200112081416.722218-4-jiaxun.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx/
> > 
> > Please help me understand this property appeared there and how did you
> > get it reviewed?
> Hi all,
> 
> It has been some years since this series was merged.
> My vague memory tells me there was some off-list discussion made in IRC with
> linux-arch folks and IRQ folks to come up with this binding design.
> 
> In this case I guess I forgot to drop Rob's R-b tag when updating this patch
> between reversions. I  apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.
> 
> > 
> >>                                                  <0xffffffff>, /* int1 */
> >>                                                  <0x00000000>, /* int2 */
> >>                                                  <0x00000000>; /* int3 */
> > So now you will keep bringing more hacks for a hacky property. No, this
> > cannot go on.
> 
> What's the best way, in your opinion, to overhaul this property? As we don't
> really care backward compatibility of DTBs on those systems we can
> just redesign it.

You may not care about backward compatibility, but I do. We don't
break existing systems, full stop.

As for the offending property, it has no place here either. DT is not
the place where you put "performance knobs".

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.