| Message ID | 20241105213217.442809-1-robh@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | Krzysztof Wilczyński |
| Headers | show |
| Series | dt-bindings: PCI: snps,dw-pcie: Drop "#interrupt-cells" from example | expand |
Hello, > "#interrupt-cells" is not valid without a corresponding "interrupt-map" > or "interrupt-controller" property. As the example has neither, drop > "#interrupt-cells". This fixes a dtc interrupt_provider warning. Applied to dt-bindings, thank you! [01/01] dt-bindings: PCI: snps,dw-pcie: Drop "#interrupt-cells" from example https://git.kernel.org/pci/pci/c/718c157a0b94 Krzysztof
On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 03:32:16PM -0600, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote: > "#interrupt-cells" is not valid without a corresponding "interrupt-map" > or "interrupt-controller" property. As the example has neither, drop > "#interrupt-cells". This fixes a dtc interrupt_provider warning. > But the DWC controllers have an in-built MSI controller. Shouldn't we add 'interrrupt-controller' property then? - Mani > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/snps,dw-pcie.yaml | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/snps,dw-pcie.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/snps,dw-pcie.yaml > index 548f59d76ef2..205326fb2d75 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/snps,dw-pcie.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/snps,dw-pcie.yaml > @@ -230,7 +230,6 @@ examples: > > interrupts = <25>, <24>; > interrupt-names = "msi", "hp"; > - #interrupt-cells = <1>; > > reset-gpios = <&port0 0 1>; > > -- > 2.45.2 >
On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 1:26 AM Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 03:32:16PM -0600, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote: > > "#interrupt-cells" is not valid without a corresponding "interrupt-map" > > or "interrupt-controller" property. As the example has neither, drop > > "#interrupt-cells". This fixes a dtc interrupt_provider warning. > > > > But the DWC controllers have an in-built MSI controller. Shouldn't we add > 'interrrupt-controller' property then? Why? Is that needed for the MSI controller to function? I don't think so. Now we do have "interrupt-controller" present for a number of MSI providers. I suspect that's there to get OF_DECLARE to work, but I doubt we really need MSI controllers initialized early. Rob
On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 08:07:07AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 1:26 AM Manivannan Sadhasivam > <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 03:32:16PM -0600, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote: > > > "#interrupt-cells" is not valid without a corresponding "interrupt-map" > > > or "interrupt-controller" property. As the example has neither, drop > > > "#interrupt-cells". This fixes a dtc interrupt_provider warning. > > > > > > > But the DWC controllers have an in-built MSI controller. Shouldn't we add > > 'interrrupt-controller' property then? > > Why? Is that needed for the MSI controller to function? I don't think so. > No. I was asking from bindings perspective. > Now we do have "interrupt-controller" present for a number of MSI > providers. I suspect that's there to get OF_DECLARE to work, but I > doubt we really need MSI controllers initialized early. > Again no, for this case. I was under the assumption that all interrupt providers should have the 'interrupt-controller' property in their nodes. - Mani
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 11:04 AM Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 08:07:07AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 1:26 AM Manivannan Sadhasivam > > <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 03:32:16PM -0600, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote: > > > > "#interrupt-cells" is not valid without a corresponding "interrupt-map" > > > > or "interrupt-controller" property. As the example has neither, drop > > > > "#interrupt-cells". This fixes a dtc interrupt_provider warning. > > > > > > > > > > But the DWC controllers have an in-built MSI controller. Shouldn't we add > > > 'interrrupt-controller' property then? > > > > Why? Is that needed for the MSI controller to function? I don't think so. > > > > No. I was asking from bindings perspective. > > > Now we do have "interrupt-controller" present for a number of MSI > > providers. I suspect that's there to get OF_DECLARE to work, but I > > doubt we really need MSI controllers initialized early. > > > > Again no, for this case. I was under the assumption that all interrupt > providers should have the 'interrupt-controller' property in their nodes. Yes. What interrupts is the DW controller providing? Only the PCI legacy interrupts which are optional. An msi-controller and an interrupt-controller are 2 distinct providers. An MSI provider is not an interrupt provider, but an interrupt consumer. Some bindings define both, but I think many of those cases are probably wrong. Rob
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 11:26:57AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 11:04 AM Manivannan Sadhasivam > <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 08:07:07AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 1:26 AM Manivannan Sadhasivam > > > <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 03:32:16PM -0600, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote: > > > > > "#interrupt-cells" is not valid without a corresponding "interrupt-map" > > > > > or "interrupt-controller" property. As the example has neither, drop > > > > > "#interrupt-cells". This fixes a dtc interrupt_provider warning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the DWC controllers have an in-built MSI controller. Shouldn't we add > > > > 'interrrupt-controller' property then? > > > > > > Why? Is that needed for the MSI controller to function? I don't think so. > > > > > > > No. I was asking from bindings perspective. > > > > > Now we do have "interrupt-controller" present for a number of MSI > > > providers. I suspect that's there to get OF_DECLARE to work, but I > > > doubt we really need MSI controllers initialized early. > > > > > > > Again no, for this case. I was under the assumption that all interrupt > > providers should have the 'interrupt-controller' property in their nodes. > > Yes. What interrupts is the DW controller providing? Only the PCI > legacy interrupts which are optional. An msi-controller and an > interrupt-controller are 2 distinct providers. An MSI provider is not > an interrupt provider, but an interrupt consumer. Some bindings define > both, but I think many of those cases are probably wrong. > Ok, thanks for clarifying. - Mani
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/snps,dw-pcie.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/snps,dw-pcie.yaml index 548f59d76ef2..205326fb2d75 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/snps,dw-pcie.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/snps,dw-pcie.yaml @@ -230,7 +230,6 @@ examples: interrupts = <25>, <24>; interrupt-names = "msi", "hp"; - #interrupt-cells = <1>; reset-gpios = <&port0 0 1>;
"#interrupt-cells" is not valid without a corresponding "interrupt-map" or "interrupt-controller" property. As the example has neither, drop "#interrupt-cells". This fixes a dtc interrupt_provider warning. Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/snps,dw-pcie.yaml | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)