Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: nvmem: new optional property write-protect-gpios

From: Rob Herring
Date: Wed Dec 04 2019 - 10:14:29 EST


On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 09:47:01AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> czw., 28 lis 2019 o 14:45 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> napisaÅ(a):
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 4:18 PM Khouloud Touil <ktouil@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
> >
>
> Ha! I've always assumed that "to assert the write-protect pin" means
> to *protect* the EEPROM from writing. That's why it comes up as
> asserted (logical '1' in the driver) and we need to deassert it (drive
> it low, logical '0' in the driver) to enable writing. This is the
> current behavior and I'd say in this case it's just a matter of very
> explicit statement that this is how it works in the DT binding?
>
> Rob: any thoughts on this?

I agree with you. If it was called write-enable-gpios, then assert would
be to enable writing.

Rob