linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 18/27] mtd: nand: omap2: Implement NAND ready using gpiolib

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 27 Oct 2015 09:12:35 +0100
From:	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To:	Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com>
Cc:	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>, <tony@...mide.com>,
	<dwmw2@...radead.org>, <ezequiel@...guardiasur.com.ar>,
	<javier@...hile0.org>, <fcooper@...com>, <nsekhar@...com>,
	<linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alex Smith <alex.smith@...tec.com>,
	Harvey Hunt <harvey.hunt@...tec.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 18/27] mtd: nand: omap2: Implement NAND ready using
 gpiolib

Hi Roger,

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:03:02 +0200
Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com> wrote:

> On 26/10/15 22:49, Brian Norris wrote:
> > 
> > Others have been looking at using GPIOs for the ready/busy pin too. At a
> > minimum, we need an updated DT binding doc for this, since I see you're
> > adding this via device tree in a later patch (I don't see any DT binding
> > patch for this; but I could just be overlooking it). It'd also be great
> > if this support was moved to nand_dt_init() so other platforms can
> > benefit, but I won't require that.
> > 
> > Also, previous [0] proposers had suggested 'rb-gpios', not 'ready-gpio'
> > (the hardware docs typically call it 'rb' for ready/busy, FWIW). I don't
> > really care, but the name should be going into a doc, so we can choose
> > the same one everywhere.
> > 
> > EDIT: looks like the discussion was partly here [1] and it seems we're
> > landing on "rb-gpios" in the latest version [2]. Can we stick with that?
> 
> Why should it be "rb-gpios" and not "rb-gpio"?
> I don't think there are multiple gpios for r/b# function.

Because it's supposed to be a generic binding, and some NAND chips
embed several dies, thus exposing several CS and RB pins, hence the
rb-gpios name.
Also, as described here [1], the convention is to name your property
<name>-gpios even if you only need one gpio.

Best Regards,

Boris

[1]http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt#L16



-- 
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/