Re: [RFC 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: imu: Add DT binding doc for BMI323

[Jagath Jog J]

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 1:46 PM Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 21:51:17 +0200
> Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 4:42 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > We kind of lost the question along the way.  Wasn't so much about whether
> > > there was a generic binding but more about whether it is worth providing
> > > separate controls for the two IRQ pins?  Or just assume no one is crazy
> > > 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, decide
> >   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
> >
>