From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.zeus03.de (zeus03.de [194.117.254.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07BF718CBF7 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:59:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.117.254.33 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727693945; cv=none; b=owpf2OjQBTPDM0Kg/HgsdG1NXUUCgwCyVHYzLfDnR4TAbU7k5uEB1eu4Kr+hgy329/0jbRX5XX5+w5W8fJC/wFuSDS8O5Pis0CMyPJLg5kT2pkZREhvS9hzULxRSStImg3J1KOsQlxhOut3r53MdmKIByFO63rsbTtgjHBwuYjw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727693945; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tGsE4gnAGI94Dilik0vAC2fgamlajnKDHGmeN4h79NI=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=KK3LtCTJL8pXeAFjBe0ktAF+tspDHHYUKcEwAYdxiUd1yqoZPupTfAdUwJ+KobCVeQP4A0oe1r2L62HjpQZPztfaG2MtDne1AOkS//ghNhsPn5URifdFzyTqN7s6zmXk7LLf3/tif27/LrQh2vRySrJcFw2N9RT4ORBmb3FCgHU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sang-engineering.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sang-engineering.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sang-engineering.com header.i=@sang-engineering.com header.b=ey4sQ9LH; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.117.254.33 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sang-engineering.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sang-engineering.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sang-engineering.com header.i=@sang-engineering.com header.b="ey4sQ9LH" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= sang-engineering.com; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=k1; bh=/MdT qoOYofI5jKHRdvBt8ZzGblilbR+9UBQxu10obeY=; b=ey4sQ9LHWRI9n9PgfaON 5xuA1hwPE87dofg/y7cdTGPYbtCVj25LMdmVXaxU+660DuWpNS+pwmW7tTnem1SI /RGrFh1BsB5NJnAdK1ZYhLhDmo+h6IOv7hc4N4CXvr8TrCc3DUH0u54jS8DEl2+j tqM+0PGRvP9/FtptSxKj9K+8zPO1zTLtHNVR+/BCreH787IpBnzycn3K2889yaEr gsT8rRnSyqSou6Jd6+mqoVQr7QN2OpT1uCk46ItSz52epM7jmcMg7cP/16kBLteo +yPQH+FZtNCpBHKQOEqTT81OB65/CR5MpjlfhqTIeMItV+db3+bWmeirQkrhbcXV fA== Received: (qmail 2157287 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2024 12:58:53 +0200 Received: by mail.zeus03.de with ESMTPSA (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted, authenticated); 30 Sep 2024 12:58:53 +0200 X-UD-Smtp-Session: l3s3148p1@IMIjF1Qj8J8gAQnoAH/eAHsKVyf407fR Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 12:58:52 +0200 From: Wolfram Sang To: Rob Herring , Geert Uytterhoeven , linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-spec@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH dt-schema] schemas: i2c: add optional GPIO binding for SMBALERT# line Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Wolfram Sang , Rob Herring , Geert Uytterhoeven , linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-spec@vger.kernel.org References: <20240909105835.28531-1-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ViQf10GYLX3Nuesl" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: --ViQf10GYLX3Nuesl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > I had this originally in my RFC[1]. I got convinced by Geert's arguments > > because the DT snippet in the board DTS looked kinda ugly. The board > > needs to override the DTSI of the SoC to replace "interrupts" with > > "interrupts-extended": > >=20 > > =3D=3D=3D > >=20 > > &i2c3 { > > pinctrl-0 =3D <&i2c3_pins>; > > pinctrl-names =3D "i2c-pwr"; > > + > > + /delete-property/ interrupts; > > + interrupts-extended =3D <&gic GIC_SPI 290 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, <&gpi= o1 26 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING>; > > + interrupt-names =3D "main", "smbus_alert"; > > + > > + smbus; > > }; > >=20 > > =3D=3D=3D >=20 > I guess my questions here are: is this proper? Is there a better way to > describe it? Is using interrupts still the way to go? Hi Rob, do you still prefer "interrupts" over "smbalert-gpios" given the above snippet? Thanks, Wolfram --ViQf10GYLX3Nuesl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEOZGx6rniZ1Gk92RdFA3kzBSgKbYFAmb6hGgACgkQFA3kzBSg KbZQRxAAisaHk/3B+ojhVo3LMlr6I4s7403zjpBZFdZxs8v5qX4Z0oR0aoyKRlfo A6Nmv0jfGk2vgSJQdmcT/hatWYvFKofHT9JKWREIPIIwW60l1m1osnxPHC9WGOnT 6peA7Ktvmw7JYmkOoxB4rhaGXvFxj3HIbD+bKi+gRrGROdHlx0otxfISZfhArbUW 4TaWwWqWbFFq53Q9aLHjoaHgMqkSWddjotD43DcGBwlmXy2l1M+hUr3L2GcHcLFZ DxXjpG15pkQSWZ4XGLTbVsXEquSOf6bkIEyUmzSFHJG4pPgYyLiKf65fXtMJOJ2B +xy0VQmlJ49ajxxdidflCFZI1GqJAnqzS/IzthSCO+v1/F/A54QdntM8zJIn3V1C eUkcqBdLAdm213WnR5pYdrUj1TiuPXShHPLKWZsdIGcgH0600yMTJjb/4yGJYsAM Fy7WmENQy9L/TobeBT9E+0pU391ro3Mhl+Am2hRWUvK40ryQc1AKfpVHs0m6UMoW uZzZpp8OBlcCAfbXfMBtXB3WbM6tCwHwlmJ1ez1iFDRDGkV2vWw7nPkyIdc8wfy3 MIvxiqu4CAYz4NNUrsK3dXPQKjGnmtJND7evNDCIh8iSFLiYzggUpTGwkO6kiICf rLcUUUV7dxZKMahqzLtVmn7BgWosHPmyIqWMhJwtC9leG2FYN2w= =l1v0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ViQf10GYLX3Nuesl--