Hi Marek,
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:39 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/10/2017 04:58 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> Add a device node for the ROHM BD9571MWV PMIC, based on the example in
>> the DT binding documentation, but using INTC-EX instead.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Do we need to describe more regulators?
>
> To my knowledge, no.
OK, thanks!
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/salvator-common.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/salvator-common.dtsi
>> @@ -353,6 +353,30 @@
>>
>> &i2c_dvfs {
>> status = "okay";
>> +
>> + pmic: pmic@30 {
>> + pinctrl-0 = <&irq0_pins>;
>> + pinctrl-names = "default";
>> +
>> + compatible = "rohm,bd9571mwv";
>> + reg = <0x30>;
>> + interrupt-parent = <&intc_ex>;
>
> Shouldn't this be gpio2 ? Why intc-ex ?
Because we now have INTC-EX support ;-)
Serious: if a pin used for interrupt signalling can be configured for both
GPIO and INTC-EX aka IRQC, we typically configure it for INTC-EX. Probably
because the latter is a simpler block, and thus consumes less power?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
