On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:03:28AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:03:07PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 09:54:10PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > + interrupts: > > > + items: > > > + - description: main interrupt (attention) line. > > > + - description: dedicated wakeup interrupt. > > > + minItems: 1 # The wakeup interrupt is optional. > > > + interrupt-names: > > > + items: > > > + - const: irq > > > + - const: wakeup > > > + minItems: 1 > > How will this interact with a SPI device that defines interrupts at the > > device level, possibly more than one of them? Especially if the device > > has its own idea what the interrupts should be called. > My understanding that individual drivers should be able to override > whatever the default behavior core has configured, and the device can > establish their own mapping. We have this in I2C and I believe this > works well. > Is the concern about the device tree scheme or SPI core handling? Both really.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
