Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] Add support for Texas Instruments INA4230 power monitor

[Alexey Charkov]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 8:10 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 3/31/26 08:52, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 09:07:32AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >> On 3/30/26 08:14, Alexey Charkov wrote:
> >>> TI INA4230 is a 4-channel power monitor with I2C interface, similar in
> >>> operation to INA3221 (3-channel) and INA219 (single-channel) but with
> >>> a different register layout, different alerting mechanism and slightly
> >>> different support for directly reading calculated current/power/energy
> >>> values (pre-multiplied by the device itself and needing only to be scaled
> >>> by the driver depending on its selected LSB unit values).
> >>>
> >>> In this initial implementation, the driver supports reading voltage,
> >>> current, power and energy values, but does not yet support alerts, which
> >>> can be added separately if needed. Also the overflows during hardware
> >>> calculations are not yet handled, nor is the support for the device's
> >>> internal 32-bit energy counter reset.
> >>>
> >>> An example device tree using this binding and driver is available at [1]
> >>> (not currently upstreamed, as the device in question is in engineering
> >>> phase and not yet publicly available)
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://github.com/flipperdevices/flipper-linux-kernel/blob/flipper-devel/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3576-flipper-one-rev-f0b0c1.dts
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Charkov <alchark@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> Changes in v5:
> >>> - Reworded per-channel subnodes description in the binding for clarity (Sashiko)
> >>> - NB: Sashiko's suggestion to allow interrupts in the binding sounds premature,
> >>>     as the alerts mechanism is not implemented yet and there are no known users
> >>>     to test it. If anyone has hardware with the alert pins wired to an interrupt
> >>>     line - please shout and we can test/extend it together
> >>
> >> The bindings are supposed to be complete, even if not implemented, so I am not sure
> >> if the DT maintainers will agree here. We'll see.
> >
> > Given ti,alert-polarity-active-high is added seems like the interrupt
> > should be too. And the interrupt can specify the polarity, so is that
> > property really needed? There's alway the possibility that you have some
> > inverter on the board too and the interrupt polarity is not enough, but
> > solve that problem when it actually exists.
> >
>
> The alert pin can be attached to a board interrupt, or (more likely) it can
> be attached to the I2C controller's alert pin. In the latter case there is
> no interrupt property.

Alright, I will add the interrupt property and keep the dedicated flag
for alert polarity.

Following the logic of binding completeness, should I add a flag for
the single-shot mode too, even though I dropped that functionality
from the driver in one of the prior iterations?

Thanks a lot,
Alexey