pt., 22 lis 2019 o 13:53 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a): > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 1:47 PM Bartosz Golaszewski > <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > what about the existing bindings for at24 that don't mandate the > > active-low flag? I'm afraid this would break the support for this > > specific chip or lead to code duplication if we had this in both nvmem > > and at24 with different logic. > > Hm yeah I realized this when I read patches 3 & 4. > > I would to like this: > > 1. Add a new generic property > writeprotect-gpios that mandates to use GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW > and use this in the new example > > 2. Deprecate wp-gpios in the binding, keep it around but deprecated. This is a pretty standard property though - for instance it is documented in the main mmc binding and doesn't mandate GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW either. I think this is because nobody says that the write-protect line must always be driver low to be asserted - this is highly implementation-specific. Bartosz > > 3. Add a quirk to gpiolib-of in the manner of the other quirks there > (like for SPI) so that if we are dealing with some EEPROM node > like at24 and the flag is zero, tag on GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW on > the descriptor. > > The driver will now handle the semantic of both cases > with gpiolib-of providing a quirk for the old binding. > > This is how we solved this type of problem before. > > Yours, > Linus Walleij
