On Mon, 2022-09-05 at 11:56 +0300, Roger Quadros wrote: > Hi Benedikt, > > On 05/09/2022 10:17, B. Niedermayr wrote: > > From: Benedikt Niedermayr <benedikt.niedermayr@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Add a new dt-binding for the wait-pin-polarity property > > > > Signed-off-by: Benedikt Niedermayr <benedikt.niedermayr@xxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > --- > > .../bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc-child.yaml | 7 > > +++++++ > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory- > > controllers/ti,gpmc-child.yaml > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc- > > child.yaml > > index 6e3995bb1630..7c721206f10b 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc- > > child.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc- > > child.yaml > > @@ -230,6 +230,13 @@ properties: > > Wait-pin used by client. Must be less than "gpmc,num- > > waitpins". > > $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 > > > > + gpmc,wait-pin-polarity: > > + description: | > > + Wait-pin polarity used by the clien. It relates to the pin > > defined > > did you mean "client?" > Can you please specify what value is for Active Low vs Active High? Yes, that makes sense. And yes I meant "client". My typo..... > > > + with "gpmc,wait-pin". > > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 > > Why can't type be boolean? Of course we can use the boolean there. In that case I should give the property a more meaningful name e.g. wait-pin-active-high or wait-pin- active-low. Since the default behavour of this pin is Active High, a bool property "gpmc,wait-pin-active-low" would make more sense for backwards compatibility. If the property is missing, than the polarity stays on Active High like before. > > > + default: 0 > > + > > gpmc,wait-on-read: > > description: Enables wait monitoring on reads. > > type: boolean > > cheers, > -roger cheers, benedikt
