linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: imu: Add DT binding doc for BMI323

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAM+2EuLFZBnrhqb1e67XAU0ssOwsfjeR+c=xn5j7Hpts80D96Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Oct 2023 21:53:57 +0530
From:   Jagath Jog J <jagathjog1996@...il.com>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, lars@...afoo.de,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: imu: Add DT binding doc for BMI323

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 1:46 PM Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 21:51:17 +0200
> Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 4:42 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > We kind of lost the question along the way.  Wasn't so much about whether
> > > there was a generic binding but more about whether it is worth providing
> > > separate controls for the two IRQ pins?  Or just assume no one is crazy
> > > enough to play that level of mix and match.
> >
> > Ugh no, that's upfront design for a nonexistent use case.
> >
> > - First, to even consider open drain the designer need to be really
> >   short of IRQ lines/rails, and, despite knowing it's a bad idea, decide
> >   to share this line between several peripherals, even though it will
> >   require I2C traffic to just determine which one even fired the IRQ.
> >
> > - Second, be interested in using two IRQs to distinguish between
> >   different events? When we just faced the situation that we had
> >   too few IRQ lines so we need to start sharing them with open
> >   drain...?
> >
> > It's not gonna happen.
> >
> > Stay with just drive-open-drain; and configure them all as that if
> > that property is set.
>
> Good insights, I'd not really thought about the wider reasons for using
> this :)  Not done any circuit design or embedded board bring up in a
> long while.
>
> Thanks!

Thank you for the explanation and suggestion.

Regards
Jagath.

>
> >
> > Yours,
> > Linus Walleij
> >
>