Hi, On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 1:46 PM Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 21:51:17 +0200 > Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 4:42 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > We kind of lost the question along the way. Wasn't so much about whether > > > there was a generic binding but more about whether it is worth providing > > > separate controls for the two IRQ pins? Or just assume no one is crazy > > > enough to play that level of mix and match. > > > > Ugh no, that's upfront design for a nonexistent use case. > > > > - First, to even consider open drain the designer need to be really > > short of IRQ lines/rails, and, despite knowing it's a bad idea, decide > > to share this line between several peripherals, even though it will > > require I2C traffic to just determine which one even fired the IRQ. > > > > - Second, be interested in using two IRQs to distinguish between > > different events? When we just faced the situation that we had > > too few IRQ lines so we need to start sharing them with open > > drain...? > > > > It's not gonna happen. > > > > Stay with just drive-open-drain; and configure them all as that if > > that property is set. > > Good insights, I'd not really thought about the wider reasons for using > this :) Not done any circuit design or embedded board bring up in a > long while. > > Thanks! Thank you for the explanation and suggestion. Regards Jagath. > > > > > Yours, > > Linus Walleij > > >
