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

Message-ID: <20231013091615.00007399@Huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Oct 2023 09:16:15 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
CC:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Jagath Jog J <jagathjog1996@...il.com>,
        <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

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!

> 
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
>