[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a739c815-3b9a-4847-a4ec-1fa4cefe8bdb@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 20:04:52 +0000
From: Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
"gregory.clement@...tlin.com" <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
"andi.shyti@...nel.org" <andi.shyti@...nel.org>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org"
<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
"conor+dt@...nel.org" <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: i2c: mv64xxx: add reset-gpios
property
(resend as plain text)
On 27/10/23 00:15, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> + reset-gpios:
>> + description:
>> + GPIO pin providing a common reset for all downstream devices. This GPIO
>> + will be asserted then released before the downstream devices are probed.
> How about renaming this to "bus-reset-gpios"?
>
> Reason: When I read "reset-gpios", then I assume the device itself will
> be reset. In this case, the Marvell I2C controller. Some I2C mux devices
> and PCA9564 already use the property like I described.
I don't have an objection to "bus-reset-gpios" it would be trivial for
me to spin a v5 with the naming changed if everyone is in agreement
(given my timezone I might just send out a v5 with this change and then
it can be argued whether to apply v4 or v5).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists