On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 2:26 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:36:53AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 07:15:47PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > 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. > > > > So as I mentioned, the driver is not forced to use the interrupt > > supplied by the SPI core, and the worst thing is that the core > > configures the main IRQ as wakeirq and driver would need to call > > dev_pm_clear_wake_irq() before switching to correct one. I expect there > > will be just a few drivers needing that and many more would benefit from > > the default behavior and not needing to repeat the same boilerplate > > code. > > > > As far as scheme goes - I hope that Rob could confirm that we can > > override number of interrupts and names in consumers of the binding, as > > needed. > > This won't work. A device schema doesn't override what's defined here, > but just further constrains this schema. > > You could define a "spi irq" schema which devices can include if they > want to, but I don't think this pattern is that common to SPI devices. > There's not any spec behind compared to say alert irq for SMBus. > > The 'wakeup' irq name is standardized (for DT), but that's not SPI > specific. About all we could define there is 'wakeup-source' is boolean > and if there is more than one interrupt, one should be named 'wakeup'. OK, so what I am hearing is "interrupt"/"interrupt-names" properties should be defined in individual device's bindings, and wakeup-source can stay in spi-controller.yaml, right? And as far as SPI core goes, we can still do what I proposed, because we already handle "first" interrupt as the default one and the drivers can override as needed anyway... Thanks. -- Dmitry
