Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: Add support for ST TSC1641 power monitor

[Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 07:01:47PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 27/10/2025 17:53, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 10/27/25 01:40, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 26/10/2025 20:58, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>>>>>> +  reg:
> >>>>>>> +    maxItems: 1
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +  shunt-resistor-micro-ohms:
> >>>>>>> +    description: Shunt resistor value in micro-ohms. Since device has internal
> >>>>>>> +      16-bit RSHUNT register with 10 uOhm LSB, the maximum value is capped at
> >>>>>>> +      655.35 mOhm.
> >>>>>>> +    minimum: 100
> >>>>>>> +    default: 1000
> >>>>>>> +    maximum: 655350
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +  st,alert-polarity-active-high:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Isn't this just interrupt? You need proper interrupts property and then
> >>>>>> its flag define the type of interrupt.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This controls a bit written into device register.
> >>>>> I omitted interrupt property after looking at existing power monitor bindings,
> >>>>> especially hwmon/ti,ina2xx.yaml. INA226 has very similar bit controlling alert
> >>>>> pin polarity and binding doesn't define alert pin as interrupt. Overall, I didn't
> >>>>> find many power monitor bindings defining alert pins as interrupts.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On INA2xx that's SMBUS Alert. Is this the case here as well?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> It could be wired to SMBus alert, or it could be wired to a CPU interrupt pin.
> >>
> >> So please explain me why CPU interrupt pin, which in every really every
> >> device called "interrupts", would not be "interrupts" here? How CPU can
> >> even guess the number of the interrupt in such case, without
> >> "interrupts" property?
> >>
> > 
> > I thought we were discussing the need for the st,alert-polarity-active-high
> > property, sorry.
> 
> 
> Yes, we kind of do, I am just trying to understand what is expressed
> here. If this is a CPU interrupt, its flags should mark the proper
> signal level, including inverter.
> 
> If this is something else (or both), then this property might make
> sense, I just don't know what is this.

If the device's polarity is programmable and there's possibly an 
inverter, you can't express both with just flags. In that case, flags 
should be the polarity after the inverter since flags are defined by the 
interrupt provider. So we'd need something to define the device side. 
Perhaps wait until someone actually has h/w with an inverter needing 
this.

Rob