On 14/04/2023 02:32, Joel Selvaraj wrote: > Hi Krzysztof Kozlowski, > > Konrad Dybcio suggested to use interrupts-extended instead interrupts. Sorry, I have no idea what this email is about. There is no context here, no reply, it just appeared alone in my inbox without any reference. Please respond inline to existing messages, keeping necessary context you are replying to. > So in my WIP v3, I have updated it in the dts and bindings example. > However, I am confused if I should replace the "interrupts" with > "interrupts-extended" property in the schema too? I see a lot of schemas No. > specifying "interrupts", with examples using "interrupts" or > "interrupts-extended". At the same time, I see some specifying both > "interrupts" and "interrupts-extended" (like one of these two) and very > few others specify only "interrupts-extended" in the schema. Which is > the currently recommended way to do this? > > In between, the interrupt property should be a required property as the > driver will not function without an interrupt. I will fix that in v3. > > Thanks, > Joel Selvaraj Best regards, Krzysztof
