Re: [PATCH v6 09/20] dt-bindings: PCI: dwc: Add interrupts/interrupt-names common properties

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 7:52 AM Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Yoshihiro
>
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 12:40:54PM +0000, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
> > Hi Serge,
> >
> > > From: Serge Semin, Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 5:49 AM
> > >
> > > Currently the 'interrupts' and 'interrupt-names' properties are defined
> > > being too generic to really describe any actual IRQ interface. Moreover
> > > the DW PCIe End-point devices are left with no IRQ signals. All of that
> > > can be fixed by adding the IRQ-related properties to the common DW PCIe
> > > DT-schemas in accordance with the hardware reference manual. The DW PCIe
> > > common DT-schema will contain the generic properties definitions with just
> > > a number of entries per property, while the DW PCIe RP/EP-specific schemas
> > > will have the particular number of items and the generic resource names
> > > listed.
> > >
> > > Note since there are DW PCI-based vendor-specific DT-bindings with the
> > > custom names assigned to the same IRQ resources we have no much choice but
> > > to add them to the generic DT-schemas in order to have the schemas being
> > > applicable for such devices. These names are marked as vendor-specific and
> > > should be avoided being used in new bindings in favor of the generic
> > > names.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Note without the next dtschema tool fix
> > >
> > > --- a/lib.py 2022-09-29 15:17:13.100033810 +0300
> > > +++ b/lib.py     2022-09-29 15:19:54.886172794 +0300
> >
>
> > JFYI.
> >
> > git am command could not work correctly by this lib.py file:
> > ---
> > Applying: dt-bindings: PCI: dwc: Add interrupts/interrupt-names common properties
> > error: lib.py: does not exist in index
> > Patch failed at 0001 dt-bindings: PCI: dwc: Add interrupts/interrupt-names common properties
> > ---
> >
> > If I used patch command and skipped the lib.py, it could apply this patch correctly.
>
> Got it. Thanks for the note. I'll either drop this part on the next
> patchset revision (hopefully Rob will do something about that by then)
> or make it less looking like a patch so git am wouldn't be confused.

Now fixed in main branch. Thanks for the report.

Rob