Hi Khouloud,
thanks for your patch!
I just have a semantic comment:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 3:21 PM Khouloud Touil <ktouil@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Instead of modifying all the memory drivers to check this pin, make
> the NVMEM subsystem check if the write-protect GPIO being passed
> through the nvmem_config or defined in the device tree and pull it
> low whenever writing to the memory.
It is claimed that this should be pulled low to assert it so by
definition it is active low.
> + wp-gpios:
> + description:
> + GPIO to which the write-protect pin of the chip is connected.
> + maxItems: 1
Mandate that the flag in the second cell should be GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW
> patternProperties:
> "^.*@[0-9a-f]+$":
> type: object
> @@ -66,6 +71,7 @@ examples:
> qfprom: eeprom@700000 {
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <1>;
> + wp-gpios = <&gpio1 3 0>;
#include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
wp-gpios = <&gpio1 3 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
This will in Linux have the semantic effect that you need to
set the output high with gpio_set_val(d, 1) to assert it
(drive it low) but that really doesn't matter to the device tree
bindings, those are OS-agnostic: if the line is active low then
it should use this flag.
It has the upside that the day you need a write-protect that
is active high, it is simple to support that use case too.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
