Re: [PATCH v7 3/7] dt-bindings: iio: accel: adxl345: add interrupt-names

[Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1640 bytes --]

On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 12:10:57PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 21:19:05 +0000
> Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Add interrupt-names INT1 and INT2 for the two interrupt lines of the
> > sensor.
> > 
> > When one of the two interrupt lines is connected, the interrupt as its
> > interrupt-name, need to be declared in the devicetree. The driver then
> > configures the sensor to indicate its events on either INT1 or INT2.
> > 
> > If no interrupt is configured, then no interrupt-name should be
> > configured, and vice versa. In this case the sensor runs in FIFO BYPASS
> > mode. This allows sensor measurements, but none of the sensor events.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@gmail.com>
> 
> Just to repeat what I sent in reply to v6 (well after you'd posted this).
> Maybe we can maintain compatibility with the binding before this by adding
> a default of INT1.

But can you make that assumption? If we did, and it's not universally
true, we break systems that had INT2 connected that previously worked.

> Then you'd need to drop the dependency on interrupt-names.
> 
> I'm not sure though if the checking of number of entries will work against
> a default. Give it a go and see what happens :)
> 
> We are lucky that we can't have bindings in the wild assuming ordering
> of the two interrupts due to the maxItems being set for interrupts.
> 
> It's a messy corner, perhaps we should just not bother in the binding,
> but keep that default handling in the driver?
> 
> DT binding folk, what do you think the best way of handling this is?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]