Hi Linus, > Am 09.12.2020 um 09:38 schrieb Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org>: > > 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 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
Ok, so in this line the L is ok. > > 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 Ok, so my assumption about H is right and not the part in parenthesis with ???. > >> + 3) Effectively this rule defines that the ACTIVE level of the >> + gpio has to be ignored > > Nr 3 isn't tagged in the table. Well, it was thought as a third but general note. Maybe should have been a *) or omitted since the table stands for itself. > > Yours, > Linus Walleij So let me prepare a patch with fixes for this. BR and thanks, Nikolaus
