From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Walleij Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] pinctrl: mcp23s08: configure irq polarity using irq data Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:21:56 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1511252491-79952-1-git-send-email-preid@electromag.com.au> <1511252491-79952-5-git-send-email-preid@electromag.com.au> <20171121133434.tuvxtrrbabjk4zeg@earth> <20171121152142.zg3r57gl2kenjwgi@earth> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20171121152142.zg3r57gl2kenjwgi@earth> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Sebastian Reichel , Marc Zyngier Cc: Phil Reid , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , linux-gpio-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Sebastian Reichel wrote: > IMHO the explicit line-inverter is a bit over-engineered and > implicit line-inverter is enough, but I'm fine with both solutions. > I think the DT binding maintainers should comment on this though, > since it's pretty much a core decision about interrupt specifiers. I feel the same. I am very much back and forth on the subject. Simplicity of use vs modelling the system as it actually works. Back and forth. I honestly have just a very vague idea about this. I don't know if Marc Z as irqchip maintainer has some idea on how to model inverters on irq lines or if he's seen some solutions to it out there. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html