On 22.10.19 12:50, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:43:09 +0200
> Martin Kepplinger <martink@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 22.10.19 05:56, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
>>> Current wording in the binding documentation doesn't make it 100%
>>> clear that only one of "INT1" and "INT2" will ever be used by the
>>> driver and that specifying both has no advantages. Re-word it to make
>>> this aspect a bit more explicit.
>
> From a quick glance at the datasheet, it appears that the hardware
> is capable of routing different interrupts to different pins, even
> if the driver does not do so.
>
> CTRL_REG5 has 6 different bits to set whether particular blocks have
> their interrupt routed to INT1 or INT2, so it appears to be possible
> to send some each way.
>
> A binding is for the hardware not the driver, so if I'm right about this
> the current text is correct and should be left alone.
right, please ignore my "acked-by". Thanks a lot for taking a look.
martin
