On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 10:04:24PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 01:27:01PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 02:56:56PM +0100, Markus Burri wrote: > > > The property is implemented in the driver but not described in dt-bindings. > > > Add missing property 'gpio-activelow' to DT schema. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Markus Burri <markus.burri@xxxxxx> > > > > > > --- > > > .../devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-matrix-keypad.yaml | 3 +++ > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-matrix-keypad.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-matrix-keypad.yaml > > > index 75975a1..b10da65 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-matrix-keypad.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-matrix-keypad.yaml > > > @@ -38,6 +38,9 @@ properties: > > > type: boolean > > > description: Do not enable autorepeat feature. > > > > > > + gpio-activelow: > > > + type: boolean > > > + description: The GPIOs are low active. > > > > Ideally this should be defined correctly in the gpio properties. The > > problem is that does a 0 flag value mean active high or I forgot to > > define it. There's a similar issue in spi-controller.yaml. I *think* the > > problem is better here since this is an active low boolean rather than > > an active high boolean. > > > > Of the users in the kernel tree, only > > arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/omap/am335x-guardian.dts got this right. > > > > So I think we should mark this deprecated and put a note to use GPIO > > flags instead. > > So is the proposal to force GPIO as active low if the property is > present and leave as is if it is missing? Because current driver > behavior is to force GPIOs as active high if the property is missing. > I do not touch the current implementation. Currently if the property is set the GPIO's are toggled to active low or if the property is missing to active high. > Also, what is the benefit from having property marked as deprecated vs > not documenting it in hopes that DTSes will fail validation and be > fixed? Good question? The dt schema checker will complain since it is used in some dtb's I do not like to see warnings > > Thanks. > > -- > Dmitry
