On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:14:10PM +0930, Andrew Jeffery wrote: > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery <[email protected]> > --- > > Since v1: > > Rob: I haven't added your Acked-by here as I've made the following changes and > wanted to get your input: > > * Remove interrupt-controller as an optional property > * Defer to interrupt-controller bindings document for sub-node properties > > I had a discussion with Joel about whether the interrupt-controller capability > should be optional and the conclusion was that it should always be configured > by the driver. This makes an optional interrupt-controller property feel > redundant (and possibly inaccurate if left out) so I've removed it.
I don't follow. What do you mean byt "configured by the driver". If the block supports interrupts, then it should be marked as an interrupt-controller. It never should have been optional. The OS can ignore the interrupt properties if it chooses. Rob
