On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Marco Felsch wrote: > On 19-12-12 16:51, Mark Brown wrote: > > Something needs to say what that thing is, especially if it's runtime > > controllable. In your case from the point of view of software there is > > actually no enable control so we shouldn't be providing an enable > > operation to the framework. > The enabel control signal is always available, please check [1] table > 63. There is a mux in front of the enable pin so: What I'm saying is that I think the binding needs to explicitly talk about that since at the minute it's really confusing reading it as it is, it sounds very much like it's trying to override that in a chip specific fashion as using gpiolib and the GPIO bindings for pinmuxing is really quite unusual.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
