[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251031173029.904313-1-igor@reznichenko.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 10:30:28 -0700
From: Igor Reznichenko <igor@...nichenko.net>
To: krzk@...nel.org
Cc: conor+dt@...nel.org,
corbet@....net,
david.hunter.linux@...il.com,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
krzk+dt@...nel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux@...ck-us.net,
robh@...nel.org,
skhan@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: Add support for ST TSC1641 power monitor
>>> On 10/28/25 08:17, Igor Reznichenko wrote:
>>>> Understood. The bit in question controls the alert pin polarity on the device side,
>>>> independent of whether the pin is used as interrupt or not. I'll drop the property
>>>> for now and revisit if there's a board that actually uses an inverter or needs to
>>>> program the bit explicitly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is kind of unusual. The requirement used to be that devicetree properties
>>> shall be complete. "Only if there is a known use case" is a significant policy
>>> change. Has the policy changed recently ?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Guenter
>>
>> Rob, following up on Guenter's question above.
>> I'm not sure whether it's better to drop the property as discussed earlier or keep
>> it for binding completeness.
>> Could you clarify what approach is preferred?
>
>Don't you have there possibility of interrupt (not only SMBus Alert)? At
>least this is what I understood from previous talks.
Yes, the alert pin could be used as interrupt in principle.
Datasheet calls it "Multi-functional digital alert pin".
Thanks, Igor
Powered by blists - more mailing lists