lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [rtc-linux] [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: add hym8563 binding
On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 02:46:11PM +0100, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Am Montag, 2. Dezember 2013, 14:41:10 schrieb Mark Brown:
> > On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 08:47:42PM +0100, Heiko Stübner wrote:

> > > +Required properties:
> > > +- compatible: should be: "haoyu,hym8563"
> > > +- reg: i2c address
> > > +- gpios: alarm interrupt gpio

> > Why is this specified as a GPIO and not as an interrupt?
>
> sorry for the late reply, but it seems I got somehow droppen from your
> recipient list, so just found this mail on the mailinglist.

Your mail had reply to set on it.

> In v1 I specified the interrupt and the gpio. Apart from the resulting
> duplication of information this also resulted in the gpio only being requested
> but never used itself, which Mark Rutland did not seem to like this much :-) .
>
> As I'd like to keep the sanity check that really requesting the interrupt gpio
> always provided thru a gpio. As there are other drivers going this route it
> looked like an ok way to go.

> So what would be the real way to go? Specify only the interrupt, only the gpio
> or both?

Specify only the interrupt if it's genuinely an interrupt - requiring a
GPIO is broken as not all interrupt controllers are also GPIOs. There
are some OMAP drivers that are broken in this regard but they shouldn't
be doing that. Only use a GPIO specifier if it's used as a GPIO.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-09 12:41    [W:0.046 / U:1.848 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site