On 05/10/2022 12:05, Niedermayr, BENEDIKT wrote: > On Fri, 2022-09-30 at 22:01 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 30/09/2022 21:42, Rob Herring wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 02:56:39PM +0200, B. Niedermayr wrote: >>>> From: Benedikt Niedermayr <benedikt.niedermayr@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> The GPMC controller has the ability to configure the polarity for the >>>> wait pin. The current properties do not allow this configuration. >>>> This binding directly configures the WAITPIN<X>POLARITY bit >>>> in the GPMC_CONFIG register by setting the gpmc,wait-pin-polarity >>>> dt-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..477189973334 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: >>> >>> 'gpmc' is not a vendor. Don't continue this bad pattern, use 'ti'. >>> >>>> + description: | >>>> + Set the desired polarity for the selected wait pin. >>>> + 1 for active low, 0 for active high. >>> >>> Well that looks backwards. I assume from the commit msg above, it's the >>> register value, but that's not what the description says. Please go with >>> the logical state here and do the inversion in the driver. >> >> This was actually my suggestion to keep the same value as >> ACTIVE_HIGH/LOW in standard GPIO flags. The DTS could reuse the defines. >> > Ok, but how to proceed know? IMHO it makes more sense to use the value which actually lands in the register since most > people will use the value found in the Datasheet. > > We already had a discussion with Roger about the GPIO bindings vs. wait-pin binding. The point was that we do not use GPIO bindings > in this case, or? Go with Rob's suggestion, so back to previous version. Best regards, Krzysztof
