From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752270AbeA3Oow (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:44:52 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:40616 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751360AbeA3Oou (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:44:50 -0500 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org AACD12178E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=robh@kernel.org X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x22531ZOuHL3AkqSvg6lMJiaP+v+V0MAJPkWyMzVCD646IuPXQ5+SDzqavpgMSW8YKu+5rM+uYd200oXcH2cNHDY= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20180123121801.4214-1-m.grzeschik@pengutronix.de> <20180123121801.4214-5-m.grzeschik@pengutronix.de> <20180129234146.73hvclxohhme5i2w@rob-hp-laptop> <1517302582.5307.16.camel@diehl.com> From: Rob Herring Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 08:44:28 -0600 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] rtc: isl1208: add support for isl1219 with hwmon for tamper detection To: Denis OSTERLAND Cc: "m.grzeschik@pengutronix.de" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux@roeck-us.net" , "a.zummo@towertech.it" , "jdelvare@suse.com" , "alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com" , "linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org" , "kernel@pengutronix.de" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:56 AM, Denis OSTERLAND > wrote: >> Am Montag, den 29.01.2018, 17:41 -0600 schrieb Rob Herring: >>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 01:18:01PM +0100, Michael Grzeschik wrote: >>> > >>> > We add support for the ISL1219 chip that got an integrated tamper >>> > detection function. This patch implements the feature by using an hwmon >>> > interface. [...] >>> There's not much point in having an example for every compatible. This >>> binding is simple enough, one should be enough. >> Shell we remove the example without an interrupt? > > The existing example has a single interrupt, right? That should be > enough. You just need to document for the interrupts property which > devices have 2 interrupts and what the order is. Looking at the first patch now, yes you can drop the 1st example and just keep the 2nd example. Rob