Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:6 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:6;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230918080314.11959-1-jagathjog1996@gmail.com>
 <20230918080314.11959-2-jagathjog1996@gmail.com> <20230924143710.7c6edc4a@jic23-huawei>
 <CAM+2EuJ8o5X2ucph8gic2=03bbLQmUCX=j3SFLrqD4Y6rwXs9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230930170530.0b8f185c@jic23-huawei> <CAM+2EuKzBVbTF2SrpYEYfzap1wrONboFV-QuTU9Fz7sVjqJLeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231010100002.0163d681@jic23-huawei> <CACRpkdY+K90mN1Q1tf38FLRgEsz3q8dK9SJYSQVwGe=PL3FaUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231010154216.6032a1c2@jic23-huawei> <CACRpkdY4yJKmc_Sbr=4sJ0WseCEEBOQ7wKj4fBUMG2_cx-Xxbw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231013091615.00007399@Huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <20231013091615.00007399@Huawei.com>
From:   Jagath Jog J <jagathjog1996@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Oct 2023 21:53:57 +0530
Message-ID: <CAM+2EuLFZBnrhqb1e67XAU0ssOwsfjeR+c=xn5j7Hpts80D96Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: imu: Add DT binding doc for BMI323
To:     Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
        andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, lars@metafoo.de,
        robh+dt@kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org,
        linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 1:46=E2=80=AFPM Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 21:51:17 +0200
> Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 4:42=E2=80=AFPM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.=
org> wrote:
> >
> > > We kind of lost the question along the way.  Wasn't so much about whe=
ther
> > > there was a generic binding but more about whether it is worth provid=
ing
> > > separate controls for the two IRQ pins?  Or just assume no one is cra=
zy
> > > 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, decid=
e
> >   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!

Thank you for the explanation and suggestion.

Regards
Jagath.

>
> >
> > Yours,
> > Linus Walleij
> >
>