On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:11:29AM +0100, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
>
>
> On 2015-07-27 19:33, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 03:37:48PM +0100, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
> >> Am 2015-07-27 um 16:23 schrieb Mark Rutland:
> >>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 03:08:15PM +0100, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
> >>>> For the devices supported by the mma8452 driver, two interrupt pins are
> >>>> available to route the interrupt signals to. By default INT1 is assumed.
> >>>>
> >>>> This adds a bitmask DT property for users to configure interrupt sources
> >>>> for INT2, if that is the wired interrupt pin for them.
> >>>
> >>> This sounds like configureation rather than a HW property. Why does this
> >>> need to be in the DT?
> >>
> >> It's a hardware property of the board that uses the device. There might
> >> be boards that connect just one of them at random, which is the reason
> >> for this DT property. There also might be exotic users who will want
> >> to use both pins to route different interrupt sources to (not yet
> >> supported, but no problem with such a bitmask).
> >
> > Ok, so I'm somewhat confused as to what the hardware looks like and what
> > this means.
> >
> > Could you elaborate on how INT1 and INT2 are used? It looks like they're
> > used as output pins, and so interrupt-names would seem appropriate for
> > describing the combination which is wired up.
>
> They are just the chip's two possible interrupt lines for us to get
> notified about event.
Ok. So that matches my understanding.
> You build a board, you use one of these 4 chips, wiring up just one of
> the 2 interrupt pins. By far most people won't ever need both pins.
>
> DT describes your hardware, right? So you describe how you built your
> board (wired the accelerometer chip) with this DT property.
Ok.
> > w.r.t. configuring the choice of output(s), that sounds like a runtime
> > decision rather than something which needs to be configured statically.
>
> This won't be useful during runtime. (De)activating events is what you
> do in iio sysfs.
>
> Even in the rare case (maybe supported in the future) when you want one
> interrupt source on one pin and another source on the other pin, that
> describes your hardware. You wire, say, data-ready to Linux and
> motion-detection to some strange alarm system. When you change your
> hardware (say, use Linux for both pins), I think it would justify
> changing a DT property.
In that case you would need additional properties anyway.
> Btw, we are talking about very theoretical stuff here. For now (and even
> possibly forever) we just don't ever want to break a DT propery we
> introduce here, thus the bitmask.
I don't think you need the bitmask.
I think all you need is interrupt-names, e.g.
dev1 {
/* both wired up */
interrupts = <&some_ic 0 47>, <&some_ic 5 62>;
interrupt-names = "INT1", "INT2";
}
dev2 {
/* only INT2 wired up */
interrupts = <&some_ic 3 96>;
interrupt-names = "INT2";
}
You can figure out which interrupts are wired up by trying to acquire
them by name, then falling back to acquiting an anonymouos interrupt
(assuming it's INT1) to keep compatible with existing DTBs. You can
choose which to use arbitrarily, try to load balance, or whatever you'd
like.
If it's later necessary to route some interrupts to another device,
additional properties can be added to accomodate that. We already know
that the bitmask alone is not sufficient for that case.
Thanks,
Mark.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
