Hi Rob On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 8:23 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:47:47PM +0200, Ricardo Ribalda Delgado wrote: > > Document new enable-gpio field. It can be used to disable the part > > enable-gpios > > > without turning down its regulator. > > > > Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <ricardo.ribalda@xxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ad5820.txt | 7 +++++++ > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ad5820.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ad5820.txt > > index 5940ca11c021..9ccd96d3d5f0 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ad5820.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ad5820.txt > > @@ -8,6 +8,12 @@ Required Properties: > > > > - VANA-supply: supply of voltage for VANA pin > > > > +Optional properties: > > + > > + - enable-gpios : GPIO spec for the XSHUTDOWN pin. Note that the polarity of > > +the enable GPIO is the opposite of the XSHUTDOWN pin (asserting the enable > > +GPIO deasserts the XSHUTDOWN signal and vice versa). > > shutdown-gpios is also standard and seems like it would make more sense > here. Yes, it is a bit redundant to have both, but things just evolved > that way and we don't want to totally abandon the hardware names (just > all the variants). > Sorry to insist The pin is called xshutdown, not shutdown and is inverse logic, Wouldnt it make more sense to use the name enable-gpios? Regards > Rob -- Ricardo Ribalda
