lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Oct]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 2/2] fpga: Add support for Lattice iCE40 FPGAs
From
Date
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?


>
> -gpios is preferred.
>
> Please state direction and polarity.

Thanks, I'll fix that up.

>
>> +- 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?


Thanks
Joel

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-10-31 17:59    [W:0.113 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site