On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Joel Holdsworth
[off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Rob,

Thanks for taking the time review the patches.

quoted

quoted

 .../bindings/fpga/lattice-ice40-fpga-mgr.txt       |  23 +++

It's preferred that bindings are a separate patch.

Can you just clarify a little? I'm happy to split the patch up, but I don't
understand how it could work without the bindings. For example, in
ice40_fpga_probe, I have to get the GPIOs with devm_gpiod_get for the driver
to work.

Maybe I'm missing something. Or do you just mean the documentation?

Yes, just the documentation.

[...]

quoted

quoted

+- creset_b-gpio:       GPIO connected to CRESET_B pin. Note that
CRESET_B is

Don't use '_'. In this case, I'd just do cresetb-gpios.

So the pin is called CRESET_B in the datasheet. I think the _B refers to the
active-low polarity of the line.

So I would think it should be creset-b-gpios or creset-gpios. I'm not so
convinced cresetb-gpios is ideal, but it's a minor point.

quoted

quoted

+                       treated as an active-low output because the
signal is
+                       treated as an enable signal, rather than a reset.
This

Though for enable signals, enable-gpios is fairly standard even if that
deviates from the pin name.

I would think that would just confuse the user, unless they dig out the
binding docs. The FPGA doesn't have an enable pin, and it's not at all
obvious that a "reset" pin means "enable" in this driver.

Again, if you're adamant this is the correct convention it's no problem to
make the change - just seems weird to me. What do you think?

"reset-gpios" is also somewhat standard if you prefer. You're the one
that called it an enable. :)

Rob