Hi Dong, On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:26:57PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: > Hi Linus & j, > > >> > >> 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. > > > > What's the final decision of this? I admit a was buying a bit of time and post-poned the gentle ping for any final word on this. But since you're asking I'll second your question :) > > I saw the following revert patch in pinctrl-next but did not see a successive > patch to add output-enable back? > Still waiting to have a feedback on which properties to add, that's why I have not sent anything yet. Thanks j > IMX7ULP pinctrl driver is pending on this because it needs use both > input-enable and output-enable if we want to make them generic property. > > commit b4d2ea2af95cb77e2f320e24da526280d4aa2f6b > Author: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon May 8 10:48:21 2017 +0200 > > Revert "pinctrl: generic: Add bi-directional and output-enable" > > This reverts commit 8c58f1a7a4b6d1d723bf25fef9d842d5a11200d0. > > It turns out that applying these generic properties was > premature: the properties used in the driver using this > are of unclear electrical nature and the subject need to > be discussed. > > Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Regards > Dong Aisheng > > >> > >> > 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
