From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: nvmem: new optional property
 write-protect-gpios
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 09:14:24 -0600
Message-ID: <20191204151424.GA20683@bogus>
References: <20191120142038.30746-1-ktouil@baylibre.com>
 <20191120142038.30746-2-ktouil@baylibre.com>
 <CACRpkdaZrvPObjyN4kasARzKZ9=PiAcvTzXzWkmC7R+Ay5tU8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMpxmJWSgYjcGdR7Zrj-=nA+H8cYfZUriHQPxN=8zgPDvD-wTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACRpkdaW82pgQivc0VVgqqVv4fgXxMyGD3Lo8YHcMK7aGPDKaw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMpxmJU_0MzroyD_ZF5WOxpZz3dkADLOmW7aKpWdJ7GCvo-RnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACRpkdaPQKxfC66yhG=xdmCOGGd9PjDVCwZquKb+4HmuS_=kNA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALL1Z1xpcGyh_f3ooRT+gGApoAnS7YBMd2hUKqnt+pTcAFoeAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACRpkdYEEypRZOaO3Ta9aDgizNeLyUOSraBEhKaZcHaJV+o0gQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMRc=MfVod5ODvsQbVBny1+Yvre1F971uR_DqsvoiYATvUfoXw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMRc=MfVod5ODvsQbVBny1+Yvre1F971uR_DqsvoiYATvUfoXw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, Khouloud Touil <ktouil@baylibre.com>, Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>, baylibre-upstreaming@groups.io, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, linux-i2c <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>
List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 09:47:01AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> czw., 28 lis 2019 o 14:45 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> napisał(a):
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 4:18 PM Khouloud Touil <ktouil@baylibre.com> 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