Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: usb: mt6360-tcpc: Drop interrupt-names

[Conor Dooley]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 09:48:23AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 23/01/24 18:14, Conor Dooley ha scritto:
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:32:30AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > > Il 19/01/24 17:32, Conor Dooley ha scritto:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 10:41:04AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > > > > This IP has only one interrupt, hence interrupt-names is not necessary
> > > > > to have.
> > > > > Since there is no user yet, simply remove interrupt-names.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm a bit confused chief. Patch 2 in this series removes a user of this
> > > > property from a driver, so can you explain how this statement is true?
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe I need to drink a few cans of Monster and revisit this patchset?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > What I mean with "there is no user" is that there's no device tree with any
> > > mt6360-tcpc node upstream yet, so there is no meaningful ABI breakage.
> > > Different story would be if there was a device tree using this already, in
> > > which case, you can make a required property optional but not remove it.
> > 
> > Not every devicetree lives within the kernel.. If the driver is using
> > it, I'm not inclined to agree that it should be removed.
> 
> I get the point, but as far as I remember, it's not the first time that this
> kind of change is upstreamed.
> 
> I'm fine with keeping things as they are but, since my intention is to actually
> introduce an actual user of this binding upstream, and that actually depends on
> if this change is accepted or not (as I have to know whether I can omit adding
> the interrupt-names property or not)....
> 
> ....may I ask for more feedback/opinions from Rob and/or Krzk?

Sure, I am happy to be overruled if they disagree.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature