On 10/12/2017 11:15 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Marek,
Hi Geert,
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 10/12/2017 08:56 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> 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?
>> That should be in the commit message :)
>
> Does it? The schematics clearly mark the signal as IRQ0n, not GP2_00.
I have a patch in my tree which connects the ROHM PMIC to GPIO 2 , so if
there is such a benefit to connecting it to intc-ex , I think it should
be explained in the commit message.
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
