On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 11:06:18 +0200
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 10:59 AM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Jagath Jog J <jagathjog1996@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > Regarding your earlier suggestion to have two different controls for
> > > drive-open-drain, do I need to define sensor-specific drive controls
> > > in bindings for both interrupt pins?
> > > for ex: bosch,irq{1,2}-open-drain
> >
> > Hmm. We do have precedence for a single control e.g.
> > nxp,fxls8962af.yaml as drive-open-drain. So perhaps just go with that
> > and if anyone is needs different values we can figure it out later.
> > pin control (which is where that binding item comes from) seems to have
> > examples doing much the same. Sets of pins with a single drive-open-drain
> > entry.
> >
> > Linus, any comments on this as you've dealt with far more similar cases
> > than me!
>
> Also st,st-sensors use drive-open-drain.
>
> And that in turn is used because the pin control subsystem use that
> exact property. (See
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pincfg-node.yaml)
>
> So use that.
>
> (I'm so happy to be able to provide a definitive answer for once!)
We kind of lost the question along the way. Wasn't so much about whether
there was a generic binding but more about whether it is worth providing
separate controls for the two IRQ pins? Or just assume no one is crazy
enough to play that level of mix and match.
J
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
