From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF908C43215 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 13:45:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B687F21789 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 13:45:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="ZqFnPPmF" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727126AbfK1NpM (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Nov 2019 08:45:12 -0500 Received: from mail-lf1-f68.google.com ([209.85.167.68]:46169 "EHLO mail-lf1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726681AbfK1NpL (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Nov 2019 08:45:11 -0500 Received: by mail-lf1-f68.google.com with SMTP id a17so20066698lfi.13 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 05:45:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qVyVH3GucIXCwfrLXX19RLZ09hFTpdgyonXBY6f04/k=; b=ZqFnPPmFXVOZPQ+d07lBFfoR3OZn+DTxcIkmUV2Ixk3ZgAOc1136lj4VSNYn7ltmue Y7q9kYYfko+UbksL+7cOxZg2Xfz1Uo6AavH2kyMi3RteXWGRsX5vpWqQf/RK77j9iwve PAQgcfFrhlltVqBW3kwiFTki7LGoQaa+o8mJwOZ8PQ51I6y8SYdjhmMkWkaoOG8+KOaO GhBnhG7YZzOGZpMTi96UUGJjxRLUc9Z09SJEjaM+uAlnWFpMohoEJNbhbL2mWtKnHjpU lC67Wv4bSGZdmb7egsTcBU3DgjWUCP9ugxohPyZsLVuYTFzueoyVkJ0Ix1hmF6ZSR0zK ueMA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qVyVH3GucIXCwfrLXX19RLZ09hFTpdgyonXBY6f04/k=; b=euaUHI1//xsBHtKODR6knwPhJXEVCNz2u9sDr08IFZKvBiH1N2+m4QmWXKffvvMRy3 FK8q+wXMq7IGPTzv3WSMtJGWYCYr6+YsYbni/NpfRp8n7O3xEW5tl+Rl5vfyVcrhcBWx Rc0x8yVcyj14zo1K2o963D+pDkfW+aCp0Hr9MwOQCT65g6Fmumc4Ung3LpUZ4NHEsJcQ hCIJ5GJu4sdUFukwiXIsjtFpBodUaV5U9EO9IstqyD/eMOR7gYA2N4WwkexZsDgjhbGi aK2QKDxBGXlrnfV5Nqc17+Gxtzr+d3L1dfAiIbZnr0jIkGbgsn7WQkInN2hTINJ4RKLV y+vg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW3kvySLgJN0qeQ1Pouhm5SrgCaTieZlrJ5pPUuZjGfaMCRYsE6 xntazny0SEDZGHw9IwCvoAQBAcPGiKcSzUBLelZc4g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxmD5I6HnIUXKd0kI0HkU3aSQ4hioXpM0yhKdtcDcsx3EccroOaBtiV8gi40+vkYztiQmeRCAXkMncEdw2+E9Y= X-Received: by 2002:a19:f701:: with SMTP id z1mr26973589lfe.133.1574948708877; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 05:45:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191120142038.30746-1-ktouil@baylibre.com> <20191120142038.30746-2-ktouil@baylibre.com> In-Reply-To: From: Linus Walleij Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 14:44:56 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: nvmem: new optional property write-protect-gpios To: Khouloud Touil Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Srinivas Kandagatla , baylibre-upstreaming@groups.io, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , linux-i2c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 4:18 PM Khouloud Touil wrote: > [Me] >> 4. The code still need to be modified to set the value >> to "1" to assert the line since the gpiolib now handles >> the inversion semantics. > By saying "assert the wp" do you mean enable the write operation or > block it ? Yeah one more layer of confusion, sorry :/ By "asserting WP" I mean driving the line to a state where writing to the EEPROM is enabled, i.e. the default state is that the EEPROM is write protected and when you "assert" WP it becomes writable. If you feel the inverse semantics are more intuitive (such that WP comes up asserted and thus write protected), be my guest :D As long as it is unambiguously documented in the bindings and with comments in the code I'm game for whatever the at24 people feel is most appropriate. (You will set the standard for everyone else.) Yours. Linus Walleij