[PATCH V15 2/9] dt-bindings: iio: imu: icm42600: Add icm42607
Jonathan Cameron
jic23 at kernel.org
Tue Jun 30 18:45:45 PDT 2026
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 11:12:23 -0500
Chris Morgan <macroalpha82 at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Chris Morgan <macromorgan at hotmail.com>
>
> Add the ICM42607 and ICM42607P inertial measurement unit.
>
> This device is functionally very similar to the icm42600 series with a
> very different register layout. An interrupt is not required for this
> specific implementation and is not present on my test hardware
> (a 42607p).
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Morgan <macromorgan at hotmail.com>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski at oss.qualcomm.com>
A follow up on that sashiko thing from v14.
I think the requirement for interrupts is nonsense and it should not
be there for the other devices supported by the binding either.
> ---
> .../bindings/iio/imu/invensense,icm42600.yaml | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/imu/invensense,icm42600.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/imu/invensense,icm42600.yaml
> index 9b2af104f186..81b6e85decd5 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/imu/invensense,icm42600.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/imu/invensense,icm42600.yaml
> @@ -30,6 +30,8 @@ properties:
> - invensense,icm42600
> - invensense,icm42602
> - invensense,icm42605
> + - invensense,icm42607
> + - invensense,icm42607p
> - invensense,icm42622
> - invensense,icm42631
> - invensense,icm42686
> @@ -67,10 +69,24 @@ properties:
> required:
> - compatible
> - reg
> - - interrupts
>
> allOf:
> - $ref: /schemas/spi/spi-peripheral-props.yaml#
> + - if:
> + properties:
> + compatible:
> + contains:
> + enum:
> + - invensense,icm42600
> + - invensense,icm42602
> + - invensense,icm42605
> + - invensense,icm42622
> + - invensense,icm42631
> + - invensense,icm42686
> + - invensense,icm42688
> + then:
> + required:
> + - interrupts
I missed this entirely until the sashiko related discussion on v14.
interrupts are almost never required for an IIO device. The only exception
I can think of is a device that only does events - and has no usecase without
interrupts, or where the interrupt is the signal - I think we have one device
where that is true.
So I think we can just drop this if block and never require interrupts.
It doesn't matter that the other driver does - that is not something we
need to reflect in the binding.
Jonathan
>
> unevaluatedProperties: false
>
More information about the Linux-rockchip
mailing list