linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 2/3] Documentation: Add binding document for Lattice iCE40 FPGA manager

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <72ded69b-3103-0e52-b182-82bc0fe61206@airwebreathe.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 7 Nov 2016 11:57:20 -0700
From:   Joel Holdsworth <joel@...webreathe.org.uk>
To:     Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>, atull@...nsource.altera.com,
        moritz.fischer@...us.com, geert@...ux-m68k.org, robh@...nel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, clifford@...fford.at
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/3] Documentation: Add binding document for Lattice
 iCE40 FPGA manager

>> +		cdone-gpios = <&gpio 24 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>> +		reset-gpios = <&gpio 22 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense to have "gpios" and "gpio-names" ? That
> scales better imo, although in this case we cannot really talk about
> scaling.
>

I don't believe that would be conventional. '-gpios' seems to be the 
standard over '-gpio' even for a single GPIO.

Having multiple GPIOs in that field is only relevant when it could be an 
array e.g. multiple chip-select GPIO lines. Not for multiple GPIOs with 
differing functions.

Also it doesn't fit with the way devm_gpiod_get works where you select 
GPIO(s) from the device-tree, and specify whether it's an input or an 
output. In this case one is an output, one is an input.

Joel