> I had this originally in my RFC[1]. I got convinced by Geert's arguments
> because the DT snippet in the board DTS looked kinda ugly. The board
> needs to override the DTSI of the SoC to replace "interrupts" with
> "interrupts-extended":
>
> ===
>
> &i2c3 {
> pinctrl-0 = <&i2c3_pins>;
> pinctrl-names = "i2c-pwr";
> +
> + /delete-property/ interrupts;
> + interrupts-extended = <&gic GIC_SPI 290 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, <&gpio1 26 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING>;
> + interrupt-names = "main", "smbus_alert";
> +
> + smbus;
> };
>
> ===
I guess my questions here are: is this proper? Is there a better way to
describe it? Is using interrupts still the way to go?
Thanks for the guidance and happy hacking!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
