[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <65da14ca-5e99-0d2f-be9d-fac515032fb6@fi.rohmeurope.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 06:25:25 +0000
From: "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
CC: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Dmitry Rokosov <DDRokosov@...rdevices.ru>,
Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yoush@...entembedded.com>,
Cosmin Tanislav <demonsingur@...il.com>,
Jagath Jog J <jagathjog1996@...il.com>,
"linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] iio: accel: Support Kionix/ROHM KX022A
accelerometer
On 10/29/22 14:35, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 05:44:21 +0000
> "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com> wrote:
>
>>>> +
>>>> + if (fwnode_irq_get_byname(fwnode, "INT2") > 0)
>>>> + dev_warn(dev, "Only one IRQ supported\n");
>>>
>>> Why? If you get the both, only the first one will be used by the driver.
>>> Not really worth warning about the lack of features...
>>
>> My thinking regarding developing new device went along the lines:
>>
>> Precondition: The HW (and data-sheet) explain how there is two INT pins.
>> 1. Board designer reads the data-sheet and uses both INT pins.
>> 2. SW engineer finds the driver and reads the DT-binding description.
>> 3. SW engineer writes the DT-description and hopes everything "just
>> works". (Amount of hope is probably inversely proportional to the amount
>> of experience XD).
>> 4) SW engineer gives a first go to the sensor SW and notices everything
>> does not just magically work.
>
> Ah but it does "work". We simply don't use one of the IRQs. That's not
> normally a problem as there are lots of other features we don't fully
> support. Not using something is not normally considered a problem.
I guess you're correct...
> So far I'm not seeing anything that doesn't work because we only support
> one IRQ. There may be combinations of interrupts that are tricky to handle
> on one IRQ line (or may not be supported at the same time on a single line)
> but so far you don't support those anyway.. Adding a more informative warning
> when adding those features would be reasonable
>
> "Feature X not supported as only a single IRQ line available".
... and I also fully agree with this. My thinking was stuck with each
IRQ line having a purpose fixed by HW - which is not the case with this
sensor.
Yours
-- Matti
--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
Powered by blists - more mailing lists