[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240603154728.GA480397-robh@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 10:47:28 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Amna Waseem <Amna.Waseem@...s.com>
Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...s.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: ti,ina2xx: Add alert-polarity
property
On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 08:07:14AM +0200, Amna Waseem wrote:
> Add a property to the binding to configure the Alert Polarity.
> Alert pin is asserted based on the value of Alert Polarity bit of
> Mask/Enable register. It is by default 0 which means Alert pin is
> configured to be active low. To configure it to active high, set
> alert-polarity property value to 1.
>
> Signed-off-by: Amna Waseem <Amna.Waseem@...s.com>
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,ina2xx.yaml | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,ina2xx.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,ina2xx.yaml
> index df86c2c92037..a3f0fd71fcc6 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,ina2xx.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,ina2xx.yaml
> @@ -66,6 +66,14 @@ properties:
> description: phandle to the regulator that provides the VS supply typically
> in range from 2.7 V to 5.5 V.
>
> + alert-polarity:
> + description: |
> + Alert polarity bit value of Mask/Enable register. Alert pin is asserted
> + based on the value of Alert polarity Bit. Default value is active low.
> + 0 selects active low, 1 selects active high.
> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
> + enum: [0, 1]
This is alert as in SMBus Alert? That's handled as an interrupt, but
this binding has no interrupt property. And the interrupt binding
provides a way already to specify active trigger state. Why do we need a
second way to do this?
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists