[TOPIC-GPIO] drivers: sensor: bmi160: convert to new GPIO API

[pabigot]

NOTE This is untested as there is no sample, the driver only supports the SPI interface, and the breakout that I have and the neonkey that has it on-board only support I2C.

Document interrupt signal and replace legacy calls with new API.

[zephyrbot]

Some checks failed. Please fix and resubmit.

Documentation issues

/var/lib/shippable/build/IN/main_repo/zephyr/doc/_build/rst/doc/reference/file_system/index.rst:58: WARNING: Duplicate declaration, fs_statvfs
/var/lib/shippable/build/IN/main_repo/zephyr/doc/_build/rst/doc/reference/networking/net_if.rst:61: WARNING: Duplicate declaration, struct net_if_addr* net_if_ipv6_addr_lookup(const struct  in6_addr  * addr, struct  net_if  ** iface)
/var/lib/shippable/build/IN/main_repo/zephyr/doc/_build/rst/doc/reference/networking/net_if.rst:61: WARNING: Duplicate declaration, struct net_if_mcast_addr* net_if_ipv6_maddr_lookup(const struct  in6_addr  * addr, struct  net_if  ** iface)
/var/lib/shippable/build/IN/main_repo/zephyr/doc/_build/rst/doc/reference/networking/net_if.rst:61: WARNING: Duplicate declaration, struct net_if_addr* net_if_ipv4_addr_lookup(const struct  in_addr  * addr, struct  net_if  ** iface)
/var/lib/shippable/build/IN/main_repo/zephyr/doc/_build/rst/doc/reference/networking/net_if.rst:61: WARNING: Duplicate declaration, bool net_if_ipv4_addr_mask_cmp(struct  net_if  * iface, const struct  in_addr  * addr)
/var/lib/shippable/build/IN/main_repo/zephyr/doc/_build/rst/doc/reference/networking/net_if.rst:61: WARNING: Duplicate declaration, bool net_if_ipv4_is_addr_bcast(struct  net_if  * iface, const struct  in_addr  * addr)
/var/lib/shippable/build/IN/main_repo/zephyr/doc/_build/rst/doc/reference/networking/net_if.rst:61: WARNING: Duplicate declaration, net_if_mcast_monitor
/var/lib/shippable/build/IN/main_repo/zephyr/doc/_build/rst/doc/reference/peripherals/dma.rst:13: WARNING: Duplicate declaration, dma_config

Tip: The bot edits this comment instead of posting a new one, so you can check the comment's history to see earlier messages.

[MaureenHelm]

@pabigot any idea what's up with the doc warnings? does the topic-gpio branch need rebasing?

[pabigot]

@pabigot any idea what's up with the doc warnings? does the topic-gpio branch need rebasing?

@MaureenHelm Don't know about the doc warnings, but the topic branch is way out of date, last rebase was 2019-11-13, two weeks before 2.1. Once everybody's back there's a lot of maintenance that needs to be done; there will be conflicts (I tried it a week or two ago just to see).

[carlescufi]

Merging since there are no changes to doc and this is probably due to a required rebase.

[pabigot]

@carlescufi Actually this was the one we discussed in TSC yesterday; I was going to mark it DNM until we have a documented mechanism to identify unmaintained sensors. And some consensus on what "unmaintained" means. I was tending towards "has been modified but left untested".