> > 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?
Hi Rob,
do you still prefer "interrupts" over "smbalert-gpios" given the above
snippet?
Thanks,
Wolfram
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
