On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:03:28AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:03:07PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 09:54:10PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

> > > +      interrupts:
> > > +        items:
> > > +          - description: main interrupt (attention) line.
> > > +          - description: dedicated wakeup interrupt.
> > > +        minItems: 1 # The wakeup interrupt is optional.

> > > +      interrupt-names:
> > > +        items:
> > > +          - const: irq
> > > +          - const: wakeup
> > > +        minItems: 1

> > How will this interact with a SPI device that defines interrupts at the
> > device level, possibly more than one of them?  Especially if the device
> > has its own idea what the interrupts should be called.

> My understanding that individual drivers should be able to override
> whatever the default behavior core has configured, and the device can
> establish their own mapping. We have this in I2C and I believe this
> works well.

> Is the concern about the device tree scheme or SPI core handling?

Both really.