On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 8:07 AM H. Nikolaus Schaller <h...@goldelico.com> wrote:
> I find it interesting that so far nobody wants to take responsibility > for a decision (...) What causes some consternation in this discussion is the appeal to higher authority. The kernel community in general does not like authority/responsibility by way of formal hierarchy. Have you read this document? Especially point 1) Decisions: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/management-style.html (We can have a meta-discussion about this but it is not really your point I believe.) > > What I can do is to provide just a skeleton for the table that you or Linus > > can fix/fill in and make a patch out of it. Is attached and the ??? is > > something you should discuss and define. > > Please take the attached diff, comment it here and define the question marks > according to your intention and then make a patch for the YAML bindings out > of it. (I can't do because I don't know your intentions and what to write into > the commit message). I'll comment what I know, then you can send a proper patch to Mark. But you really need more people than me to look at this. > + device node | cs-gpio | CS pin state active | Note > + ================+===============+=====================+===== > + spi-cs-high | - | H | > + - | - | L | > + spi-cs-high | ACTIVE_HIGH | H | > + - | ACTIVE_HIGH | L (or H ???) | 1 When using GPIO descriptors it will be enforced to ACTIVE_LOW (L) with an explicit warning in dmesg, see drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c When using legacy GPIOs, will be enforced ACTIVE_LOW by the SPI core. > + spi-cs-high | ACTIVE_LOW | H (or L ???) | 2 When using GPIO descriptors it will be enforced to ACTIVE_HIGH (H) with an explicit warning in dmesg, see drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c > + 3) Effectively this rule defines that the ACTIVE level of the > + gpio has to be ignored Nr 3 isn't tagged in the table. Yours, Linus Walleij
