On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Joel Holdsworth <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Thanks for taking the time review the patches. > >>> .../bindings/fpga/lattice-ice40-fpga-mgr.txt | 23 +++ >> >> >> It's preferred that bindings are a separate patch. > > > Can you just clarify a little? I'm happy to split the patch up, but I don't > understand how it could work without the bindings. For example, in > ice40_fpga_probe, I have to get the GPIOs with devm_gpiod_get for the driver > to work. > > Maybe I'm missing something. Or do you just mean the documentation? Yes, just the documentation. [...] >>> +- creset_b-gpio: GPIO connected to CRESET_B pin. Note that >>> CRESET_B is >> >> >> Don't use '_'. In this case, I'd just do cresetb-gpios. > > > So the pin is called CRESET_B in the datasheet. I think the _B refers to the > active-low polarity of the line. > > So I would think it should be creset-b-gpios or creset-gpios. I'm not so > convinced cresetb-gpios is ideal, but it's a minor point. > >> >>> + treated as an active-low output because the >>> signal is >>> + treated as an enable signal, rather than a reset. >>> This >> >> >> Though for enable signals, enable-gpios is fairly standard even if that >> deviates from the pin name. > > > I would think that would just confuse the user, unless they dig out the > binding docs. The FPGA doesn't have an enable pin, and it's not at all > obvious that a "reset" pin means "enable" in this driver. > > Again, if you're adamant this is the correct convention it's no problem to > make the change - just seems weird to me. What do you think? "reset-gpios" is also somewhat standard if you prefer. You're the one that called it an enable. :) Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
