On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 12:36:40PM -0500, Sven Van Asbroeck wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 4:57 AM H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > + device node | cs-gpio | CS pin state active | Note > > + ================+===============+=====================+===== > > + spi-cs-high | - | H | > > + - | - | L | > > + spi-cs-high | ACTIVE_HIGH | H | > > + - | ACTIVE_HIGH | L | 1 > > + spi-cs-high | ACTIVE_LOW | H | 2 > > + - | ACTIVE_LOW | L | > > + > Doesn't this table simply say: > - specify 'spi-cs-high' for an active-high chip select > - leave out 'spi-cs-high' for an active-low chip select > - the gpio active high/active low consumer flags are ignored > ? It seems to, yes. > If so, then I would simply document it that way. > Simple is beautiful. Yeah, it'd definitely be easier to read and clearer what people should actually do. As Linus said it'd also be a good idea to explicitly say that this is not great design or particularly intentional since it could be pretty confusing for someone trying to understand why the bindings are the way they are. I'm going to apply this anyway to make sure we get this documentated but some incremental improvements along these lines would be good.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
