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. > Otherwise, this looks good to me - although I do wonder if the > authorship on the commit (attributed to the analog guys) is still > accurate. I think the binding is still pretty close to the last version sent out by the analog folks. The driver at this point is probably unrecognizable even though I've only really renamed stuff and moved functions around. I was kind of hoping my prodding would be met with a "oh we've already done this in our SDK, here's the latest version" but that hasn't happened. I'm fairly close to dropping anything in this series that isn't related to the MAX31334 as that is the only hardware I can actually test. > > Thanks, > Conor.
