On 15/12/16 14:04, Jon Hunter wrote: > > On 15/12/16 12:04, Peter Rosin wrote: > > ... > >>> The only other option is to add another >>> property called something like 'ti,ac-detect-override-pol' to specify >>> the polarity you want. >> >> How is that helping? It's no different that just saying active-low for >> boards that do not invert ACOK (which is what I currently do in my dts, >> but I hate doing it since it doesn't match dt docs and is therefore just >> wrong). > > By providing a means for the user to specify the polarity for their > board. Of course the documentation would need to be updated as well. I > think all solutions will be ugly if we need to preserve compatibility. > >>> To be honest, I am not sure how this type of thing is normally handled. >>> So probably best to put together a patch with whatever option you feel >>> best and explain why this is needed and see what the dev-tree folks say. >> >> I suspect that at the end of the day documentation is less important than >> regressions. But if there are more than one implementation of the same >> spec and Linux is not following it, it's kind of harsh to change the spec >> to match Linux. I doubt that there are any other users in this case though, >> but what do I know? >> >> I'll send a patch re-documenting ti,ac-detect-gpios to specify AC absence >> instead of AC presence, let's see what the dt people thinks... > > Fine with me and of course that works for Tegra, but how does that > ultimately help you? How do you tell the driver to use active-high > instead of the default which is not active-low? s/which is not/which is now/ Jon -- nvpublic -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
