Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 21 Oct 2022 14:29:48 +0200
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
To:     "Tilki, Ibrahim" <Ibrahim.Tilki@analog.com>
Cc:     "a.zummo@towertech.it" <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
        "jdelvare@suse.com" <jdelvare@suse.com>,
        "linux@roeck-us.net" <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        "robh+dt@kernel.org" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org" 
        <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        "linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org" <linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Arslanbenzer, Zeynep" <Zeynep.Arslanbenzer@analog.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] dt-bindings: rtc: add bindings for max313xx RTCs
Message-ID: <Y1KQvPAwh7NC0wbA@mail.local>
References: <20221019133910.282-1-Ibrahim.Tilki@analog.com>
 <20221019133910.282-2-Ibrahim.Tilki@analog.com>
 <Y1G6FIvS6WD57GXW@mail.local>
 <DM8PR03MB62477670C186E6CC5308B600962D9@DM8PR03MB6247.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DM8PR03MB62477670C186E6CC5308B600962D9@DM8PR03MB6247.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 21/10/2022 11:44:12+0000, Tilki, Ibrahim wrote:
> > > +  interrupt-names:
> > > +    description: |
> > > +      Name of the interrupt pin of the RTC used for IRQ. Not required for
> > > +      RTCs that only have single interrupt pin available. Some of the RTCs
> > > +      share interrupt pins with clock input/output pins.
> > > +    minItems: 1
> > > +    items:
> > > +      - enum: [INTA, INTB]
> > > +      - enum: [INTA, INTB]
> > > +
> > 
> > I don't think this is right, what this is doing is essentially pinmuxing
> > interrupts versus clocks. What happens if you want INTB but this goes
> > directly to a PMIC instead of the SoC?
> > It is not something you can express with your current bindings.
> > 
> 
> Why would a user want INTB when it is not connected to SoC?
> User can specify none, either one or both of the interrupt pins.
> I don't see what the problem here is.
> 

the interrupt pin may be connected to a PMIC that is able to start or
wake up the platform. In that case, the user would not have any
interrupt-names and your driver will fail to mux the interrupt on INTB.
Please fix.

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com