Re: [PATCH V1 1/4] bindings: nvmem: introduce "reverse-data" property

On Wed, 2021-08-11 at 08:06 +0000, Joakim Zhang wrote:

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Joakim Zhang <redacted>
Sent: 2021年8月11日 16:05
To: Jan Lübbe <jlu@pengutronix.de>; srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org;
robh+dt@kernel.org; shawnguo@kernel.org
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org; dl-linux-imx <redacted>;
kernel@pengutronix.de; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH V1 1/4] bindings: nvmem: introduce "reverse-data"
property

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Lübbe <jlu@pengutronix.de>
Sent: 2021年8月10日 23:14
To: Joakim Zhang <redacted>;
srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org; robh+dt@kernel.org;
shawnguo@kernel.org
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org; dl-linux-imx <redacted>;
kernel@pengutronix.de; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 1/4] bindings: nvmem: introduce "reverse-data"
property

On Tue, 2021-08-10 at 15:35 +0800, Joakim Zhang wrote:

quoted

Introduce "reverse-data" property for nvmem provider to reverse buffer.

Signed-off-by: Joakim Zhang <redacted>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml

b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml
index b8dc3d2b6e92..bc745083fc64 100644

--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml

@@ -61,6 +61,11 @@ patternProperties:
               description:
                 Size in bit within the address range specified by reg.

+      reverse-data:
+        $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag
+        description:
+          Reverse the data that read from the storage device.

I'd prefer if it was more explicit that the *bytes* will be reversed.
Otherwise a reader might think that this is reversing on the *bit* level.

Make sense, how about 'reverse-byte-order'?

Sorry, 'reverse-bytes-order'.

'reverse-byte-order' sounds better to me, but I'm not a native English speaker.
I'd be fine with either, though.

Thanks
Jan