On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 12:10:57PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 21:19:05 +0000 > Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Add interrupt-names INT1 and INT2 for the two interrupt lines of the > > sensor. > > > > When one of the two interrupt lines is connected, the interrupt as its > > interrupt-name, need to be declared in the devicetree. The driver then > > configures the sensor to indicate its events on either INT1 or INT2. > > > > If no interrupt is configured, then no interrupt-name should be > > configured, and vice versa. In this case the sensor runs in FIFO BYPASS > > mode. This allows sensor measurements, but none of the sensor events. > > > > Signed-off-by: Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@xxxxxxxxx> > > Just to repeat what I sent in reply to v6 (well after you'd posted this). > Maybe we can maintain compatibility with the binding before this by adding > a default of INT1. But can you make that assumption? If we did, and it's not universally true, we break systems that had INT2 connected that previously worked. > Then you'd need to drop the dependency on interrupt-names. > > I'm not sure though if the checking of number of entries will work against > a default. Give it a go and see what happens :) > > We are lucky that we can't have bindings in the wild assuming ordering > of the two interrupts due to the maxItems being set for interrupts. > > It's a messy corner, perhaps we should just not bother in the binding, > but keep that default handling in the driver? > > DT binding folk, what do you think the best way of handling this is?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
