czw., 28 lis 2019 o 14:45 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a): > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 4:18 PM Khouloud Touil <ktouil@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > [Me] > >> 4. The code still need to be modified to set the value > >> to "1" to assert the line since the gpiolib now handles > >> the inversion semantics. > > > By saying "assert the wp" do you mean enable the write operation or > > block it ? > > Yeah one more layer of confusion, sorry :/ > > By "asserting WP" I mean driving the line to a state where > writing to the EEPROM is enabled, i.e. the default state is > that the EEPROM is write protected and when you "assert" > WP it becomes writable. > > If you feel the inverse semantics are more intuitive (such that > WP comes up asserted and thus write protected), be my > guest :D > Ha! I've always assumed that "to assert the write-protect pin" means to *protect* the EEPROM from writing. That's why it comes up as asserted (logical '1' in the driver) and we need to deassert it (drive it low, logical '0' in the driver) to enable writing. This is the current behavior and I'd say in this case it's just a matter of very explicit statement that this is how it works in the DT binding? Rob: any thoughts on this? Bartosz > As long as it is unambiguously documented in the bindings > and with comments in the code I'm game for whatever the > at24 people feel is most appropriate. (You will set the standard > for everyone else.) > > Yours. > Linus Walleij
