Hi Geert,
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
I agree with your decision to use INTC-EX over GPIO, however I do
think that this discussion smells like software policy...
Isn't DT supposed to describe the hardware? =)
It's almost like we want to DT to point out the pin, not the function....
Cheers,
/ magnus
