Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S947108AbcJaVWc (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:22:32 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:33034 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S947006AbcJaVWa (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:22:30 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1477776746-3678-1-git-send-email-joel@airwebreathe.org.uk> <1477776746-3678-2-git-send-email-joel@airwebreathe.org.uk> <20161031063317.fqoaqemoiqhrrjzg@rob-hp-laptop> From: Rob Herring Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:22:06 -0500 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] fpga: Add support for Lattice iCE40 FPGAs To: Joel Holdsworth Cc: Alan Tull , Moritz Fischer , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-spi@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1778 Lines: 58 On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Joel Holdsworth wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Thanks for taking the time review the patches. > >>> .../bindings/fpga/lattice-ice40-fpga-mgr.txt | 23 +++ >> >> >> It's preferred that bindings are a separate patch. > > > Can you just clarify a little? I'm happy to split the patch up, but I don't > understand how it could work without the bindings. For example, in > ice40_fpga_probe, I have to get the GPIOs with devm_gpiod_get for the driver > to work. > > Maybe I'm missing something. Or do you just mean the documentation? Yes, just the documentation. [...] >>> +- creset_b-gpio: GPIO connected to CRESET_B pin. Note that >>> CRESET_B is >> >> >> Don't use '_'. In this case, I'd just do cresetb-gpios. > > > So the pin is called CRESET_B in the datasheet. I think the _B refers to the > active-low polarity of the line. > > So I would think it should be creset-b-gpios or creset-gpios. I'm not so > convinced cresetb-gpios is ideal, but it's a minor point. > >> >>> + treated as an active-low output because the >>> signal is >>> + treated as an enable signal, rather than a reset. >>> This >> >> >> Though for enable signals, enable-gpios is fairly standard even if that >> deviates from the pin name. > > > I would think that would just confuse the user, unless they dig out the > binding docs. The FPGA doesn't have an enable pin, and it's not at all > obvious that a "reset" pin means "enable" in this driver. > > Again, if you're adamant this is the correct convention it's no problem to > make the change - just seems weird to me. What do you think? "reset-gpios" is also somewhat standard if you prefer. You're the one that called it an enable. :) Rob