On Tue, 2024-07-02 at 16:42 +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 10:46:09AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 04:46:12PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 04:04:51PM +0100, Utsav Agarwal via B4 Relay > > > wrote: > > > > From: Utsav Agarwal <utsav.agarwal@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Updating dt bindings for adp5588. Following properties are now made > > > > optional: > > > > - interrupts > > > > - keypad,num-rows > > > > - keypad,num-columns > > > > - linux,keymap > > > > The proposed new property "gpio-only" has been added as an optional > > > > property with an additional example. > > > > > > I can see that as it is clear in the diff, but this doesn't explain why, > > > which is what you need to do in your commit message. > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Utsav Agarwal <utsav.agarwal@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/input/adi,adp5588.yaml | 28 > > > > ++++++++++++++++++---- > > > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/adi,adp5588.yaml > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/adi,adp5588.yaml > > > > index 26ea66834ae2..158fbf02cc16 100644 > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/adi,adp5588.yaml > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/adi,adp5588.yaml > > > > @@ -46,6 +46,11 @@ properties: > > > > '#gpio-cells': > > > > const: 2 > > > > > > > > + gpio-only: > > > > + description: > > > > + This property applies if keypad,num-rows, keypad,num-columns and > > > > + linux,keypad are not specified. All keys will be marked as gpio. > > > > > > Why is a property required for this? Is the absence of the 3 keypad > > > properties not sufficient to determine that you're in this mode? > > > > Yes, I think it should be enough. > > > > > > > > > > > > interrupt-controller: > > > > description: > > > > This property applies if either keypad,num-rows lower than 8 or > > > > @@ -68,10 +73,6 @@ properties: > > > > required: > > > > - compatible > > > > - reg > > > > - - interrupts > > > > > > I don't understand why interrupts is no longer required. > > > > I think it should be possible to use this chip as a GPIO controller but > > not an interrupt controller, in which case one does not have to wire up > > the interrupt line from it. However this requires much more elaborate > > binding description (i.e. no keys and no "interrupt-controller" > > property). > > Aye. I can totally understand why you might want to make the interrupt > portion optional - but it seems unrelated to the rest of the changes in > the patch (use as a keypad without interrupts could be possible, right?) > and is unexplained. > IMO, it is related as it's the new usecase (of only using the gpios) that trigger the interrupt not being required anymore. No, I don't think we can use the keypad without the interrupt line. I guess (as you suggested before) we should check if one of the rows/columns property is present and in that case still make 'interrupts' required. Agree it should be better explained. - Nuno Sá >
