On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>
>> In theory yes, but reality is pretty much everyone follows it. There's
>> no other way to specify active high vs. low for example.
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> In theory yes, but reality is pretty much everyone follows it. There's
> no other way to specify active high vs. low for example. Furthermore,
> if someone wanted to do flags in their own custom way, that would
> still work.
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:42 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:21:12AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> The current i2c-gpio DT bindings use a single unnamed
Hi Rob,
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:21:12AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> The current i2c-gpio DT bindings use a single unnamed "gpios" property
>> to refer to the SDA and SCL signal lines by index. This is error-prone
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:21:12AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> The current i2c-gpio DT bindings use a single unnamed "gpios" property
> to refer to the SDA and SCL signal lines by index. This is error-prone
> for the casual DT writer and reviewer, as one has to look up the order
> in the
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:21:12AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> The current i2c-gpio DT bindings use a single unnamed "gpios" property
> to refer to the SDA and SCL signal lines by index. This is error-prone
> for the casual DT writer and reviewer, as one has to look up the order
> in the
The current i2c-gpio DT bindings use a single unnamed "gpios" property
to refer to the SDA and SCL signal lines by index. This is error-prone
for the casual DT writer and reviewer, as one has to look up the order
in the DT bindings.
Fix this by amending the DT bindings to use two separate named