Hi Linus, On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:45:44AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:37 PM, jmondi <jacopo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> I did not follow too much. > >> But it seems IMX7ULP/Vybrid to be also a fan of generic > >> output-enable/input-enable > >> property. > >> > >> See: > >> Figure 5-2. GPIO PAD in Page 241 > >> http://www.nxp.com/assets/documents/data/en/reference-manuals/VFXXXRM.pdf > >> > >> It has separate register bits to control input buffer enable and > >> output buffer enable > >> and we need set it property for GPIO function. > > > > As it seems we have another user for 'output-enable' here, what if we just > > add that one to the generic bindings properties list, and we keep > > 'bi-directional' (which seems to be the most debated property we have > > added) out of generic properties? > > > > We can handle 'bi-directional' pins with static tables in our pin > > controller driver and not have it anywhere in DT. > > This sounds like a viable approach. > > I just want to know if "output-enable" is the right name? > "output-buffer-enable"? Great! Thanks! On naming: if we need "output-buffer-enable" should we add "input-buffer-enable" as well? Currently we are using "input-enable" to pair with "output-enable", but as you said, just "output-enable" when "output-high" and "output-low" are there already seems a bit confusing. At the same time "input-buffer-enable" seems to actually be just electrically equivalent to "input-enable", so adding it is a bit of a waste as well. I see three options here: 1) Add "output-buffer-enable" and "input-buffer-enable" we end up with "output-high" "output-low" "input-enable" "output-buffer-enable" "input-buffer-enable" 2) Add "output-buffer-enable" only we end up with "output-high" "output-low" "input-enable" "output-buffer-enable" Binding may be confusing as in one case we use "output-buffer-enable" while in the other "input-enable" 3) Add "output-enable" only "output-high" "output-low" "input-enable" "output-enable" As you, I don't like "output-enable" that much but it pairs better with "input-enable". I'll let you and DT people decide on this, as it's really an ABI definition problem and you have better judgment there. > > > I see commit 42d5a11200d0[1] has not been reverted yet as Andy asked > > in some previous email. > > I'm just overloaded. I sent that revert to Torvalds today. Thank you. Didn't want to put pressure ;) > > > I can send another version of that patch with > > only 'output-enable' if you wish. > > That's what we want. > > > Once we reach consesus, I can then send v6 of our pin controller driver > > based on that. > > OK sounds like a plan. > > Sorry for the mess, I'm just trying to get this right :/ Not a mess, and thanks for your effort in maintaining all of this Thanks j > > Yours, > Linus Walleij
