From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] ARM:Tegra: Device Tree Support: Initialize audio card gpio's from the device tree. Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 11:38:27 +0800 Message-ID: <20110530033826.GE4130@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <20110527205444.21000.90209.stgit@riker> <20110527205721.21000.78599.stgit@riker> <20110528012427.GB5971@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Olof Johansson Cc: John Bonesio , "linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, "glikely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org" , Stephen Warren List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 08:11:34PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Mark Brown > > This is a step back from the usability of the existing platform dat= a - > > the platform data uses a series of individually named GPIOs while t= his > > uses an array of GPIO numbers with magic indexes. =A0The fact that = you > > need comments explaining what the functions of the array elements a= re > > is a bit of a red flag here. > Agreed, I had similar concerns with the sdhci bindings where it used = a > 3-element array of gpios instead of the previous named ones. I was > told it's common practice to do it that way though? Seems like a step > backwards to me. :( Interesting... what was the reasoning behind this? It's a definite step backwards but it does explain my major concern with the new batch of device tree patches. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 11:38:27 +0800 Subject: [RFC 2/2] ARM:Tegra: Device Tree Support: Initialize audio card gpio's from the device tree. In-Reply-To: References: <20110527205444.21000.90209.stgit@riker> <20110527205721.21000.78599.stgit@riker> <20110528012427.GB5971@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Message-ID: <20110530033826.GE4130@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 08:11:34PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Mark Brown > > This is a step back from the usability of the existing platform data - > > the platform data uses a series of individually named GPIOs while this > > uses an array of GPIO numbers with magic indexes. ?The fact that you > > need comments explaining what the functions of the array elements are > > is a bit of a red flag here. > Agreed, I had similar concerns with the sdhci bindings where it used a > 3-element array of gpios instead of the previous named ones. I was > told it's common practice to do it that way though? Seems like a step > backwards to me. :( Interesting... what was the reasoning behind this? It's a definite step backwards but it does explain my major concern with the new batch of device tree patches.