On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 05:58:15PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 14:56:58 +0000 > Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > > I guess there is a possibility of a driver in some other OS assuming INT2, but > seems an odd 'default' choice. Ye, I think that it is unlikely a driver author would think that way. > Also odd for a writer of DT for a platform > to assume it. I agree, I think it is unlikely that someone would assume it'd work like this. I think a lack of attention paid to the schematic of the board is a more likely culprit. > There is a thing that comes up in spec orgs when discussing whether to > rush out an errata. "Is this bug something people would get wrong > thinking the answer was clear, or something where the would ask a question?" > Anyone who thinks INT2 is the obvious choice for me falls into the would > ask category. > > However, in the linux driver we would would go from assuming no interrupts > to assuming the wrong one. That's indeed bad. So I guess this doesn't work. > Oh well no default it is. I don't think you really lose anything from having no default. The driver works just fine without the interrupt, so the albeit small risk just doesn't seem worth it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
