Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 Jan 2016 12:37:35 +0000 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] regulator: max8973: add support for junction thermal warning |
| |
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 05:49:22PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > On Wednesday 06 January 2016 05:48 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >* PGP Signed by an unknown key
> >On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 11:45:22AM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> >> Enhanced transient response (ETR) will affect the configuration of CKADV. > >>+-maxim,junction-temp-warning: Junction temp warning on which device generates > >>+ warning interrupts. > >This needs to specify what the values are - it looks like it's raw > >register values but I'd have expected from this that it'd be an actual > >temperature.
> I tried to roundoff to the next higher threshold when supported value (120 > or 140 degC) is not provided in driver. But it is fine to me to specify the > possible value setting here and DT binding doc. Will do on next patch.
I don't really mind which you use so long as the documentation is clear.
> >>+-interrupt-flags: Interrupt flags for registering interrupt which can not be > >>+ passed via interrupt properties.
> >Why is this being specified and what are the values? Most devices don't > >have this...
> I have two different design with this device: > In both design, I have main PMIC like MAX77620 and two MAX77621.
> In one of design, interrupt from MAX77620, and alert from both MAX77621 > shorted and going to Arm GIC controller. On this case, I need to register > the interrupt as SHARED interrupt. This property can not be passed via > "interrupt" properties from DT. > That's why this flag is added to support this.
If the driver supports shared interrupts it should just register as a shared interrupt all the time, there is nothing about shared interrupts which requires that the pin actually be shared.
> Now, by default, if I register the interrupt as SHARED in driver then it > failed on second design as GPIO does not offer to register as SHARED > interrupt.
What makes you say that this would fail? [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |