> I had this originally in my RFC[1]. I got convinced by Geert's arguments > because the DT snippet in the board DTS looked kinda ugly. The board > needs to override the DTSI of the SoC to replace "interrupts" with > "interrupts-extended": > > === > > &i2c3 { > pinctrl-0 = <&i2c3_pins>; > pinctrl-names = "i2c-pwr"; > + > + /delete-property/ interrupts; > + interrupts-extended = <&gic GIC_SPI 290 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, <&gpio1 26 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING>; > + interrupt-names = "main", "smbus_alert"; > + > + smbus; > }; > > === I guess my questions here are: is this proper? Is there a better way to describe it? Is using interrupts still the way to go? Thanks for the guidance and happy hacking!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature