On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 08:21:35PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote: > > On 29/02/24 00:58, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 02:03:10PM +1300, Chris Packham wrote: > > > >> interrupts: > >> + description: > >> + Alarm1 interrupt line of the RTC. Some of the RTCs have two interrupt > >> + lines and alarm1 interrupt muxing depends on the clockin/clockout > >> + configuration. > >> maxItems: 1 > > The maxItems: 1 looks odd here when you state "some of the RTCs have two > > interrupt lines", which makes it sound as if there are actually two > > interrupts that should be exposed here. If those two interrupts get > > muxed to the same pin for output I'd suggest that you clarify that here. > > This may end up changing if I can come up with something that Alexandre > is happy with. Basically (some of) the chips have a configurable pin > that can either be dedicated to the ALARM1 output (annoyingly labelled > as INTB) or to a clock output. There is an INTA line that has other > interrupts and if the clock output option is used then it also has > ALARM1. The driver doesn't currently do anything with the other > interrupt sources so as written this needs to correspond to whichever > interrupt output is asserted for ALARM1. So you're saying that depending on whether or not the clock output is used, there could be two interrupts? Without looking further, it sounds like you should be setting maxItems to 1 if #clock-cells is present and to 2 if it is not. Then if there are two interrupts provided, the driver is free to configure whatever way it wants. If there aren't, send everything to INTA. Am I missing something? Cheers, Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
