On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 10:03:25AM +0200, Michal Vokáč wrote: > On 10. 10. 19 22:01, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 02:40:36PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 08:12:54AM +0200, Michal Vokáč wrote: > > > > Add an option to periodicaly poll the device to get state of the inputs > > > > as the interrupt line may not be used on some platforms. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Vokáč <michal.vokac@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > Changes since v2: > > > > - None > > > > > > > > Changes since v1: > > > > - Use poll-interval instead of linux,poll-interval. > > > > - Place the poll-interval binding into the common schema. > > > > - Properly describe that either interrupts or poll-interval property is > > > > required. > > > > - Fix the example to pass validation. > > > > > > > > .../bindings/input/fsl,mpr121-touchkey.yaml | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++- > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/input.yaml | 4 ++++ > > > > 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/fsl,mpr121-touchkey.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/fsl,mpr121-touchkey.yaml > > > > index c6fbcdf78556..035b2fee4491 100644 > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/fsl,mpr121-touchkey.yaml > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/fsl,mpr121-touchkey.yaml > > > > @@ -17,6 +17,10 @@ description: | > > > > allOf: > > > > - $ref: input.yaml# > > > > +oneOf: > > > > > > It should be valid to have both properties present, right? > > > > The poll does not really sense and does not have any effect when > > interrupt is supplied. > > From technical point of view, yes it is possible to have both > properties. But I agree that it does not really make sense to > use both at the same time. > > > > The h/w description can't know what the OS supports. > > > > It also has no idea what OS does at all and whether it even pays > > attention to any of these properties. We are just trying to say here "I > > do not have an interrupt wired, so for this device's primary use case > > (that is coupled with a certain $PRIMARY OS) we need to poll the > > controller ever so often to handle our use case". > > If I understand correctly the relationship between Linux and DT > binding, in Linux we are free to implement just part of all the > possible configuration options described by the binding. > > In this case if somebody would enable both interrupt and polling, > we will happily use the interrupt mode only. Maybe it would be nice > to at least print a message that the poll-intervall is ignored? > > > > In that case, we should use 'anyOf' here instead. > > What I am afraid of is that some DT writers may really use both > properties and expect that Linux will actually do something useful > in this case. Anyway, I am OK with that. OK, I changed it to "anyOf", folded into driver change and applied. -- Dmitry
