Re: [PATCH dt-schema] schemas: i2c: add optional GPIO binding for SMBALERT# line

Wolfram Sang <[email protected]> Mon, 30 Sep 2024 12:58:52 +0200

Newsgroups	org.kernel.vger.devicetree-spec,org.kernel.vger.linux-i2c,org.kernel.vger.linux-renesas-soc
Message-ID	<ZvqEbMHgbNymNUYJ@shikoro>

> > I had this originally in my RFC[1]. I got convinced by Geert's arguments
> > because the DT snippet in the board DTS looked kinda ugly. The board
> > needs to override the DTSI of the SoC to replace "interrupts" with
> > "interrupts-extended":
> > 
> > ===
> > 
> >  &i2c3	{
> >  	pinctrl-0 = <&i2c3_pins>;
> >  	pinctrl-names = "i2c-pwr";
> > +
> > +	/delete-property/ interrupts;
> > +	interrupts-extended = <&gic GIC_SPI 290 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, <&gpio1 26 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING>;
> > +	interrupt-names = "main", "smbus_alert";
> > +
> > +	smbus;
> >  };
> > 
> > ===
> 
> I guess my questions here are: is this proper? Is there a better way to
> describe it? Is using interrupts still the way to go?

Hi Rob,

do you still prefer "interrupts" over "smbalert-gpios" given the above
snippet?

Thanks,

   Wolfram

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)