From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: Add simple poweroff-gpio driver Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:17:04 +0000 Message-ID: <20121121131704.D81703E096D@localhost> References: <1352650891-18356-1-git-send-email-andrew@lunn.ch> <1352650891-18356-2-git-send-email-andrew@lunn.ch> <50A020C5.4070506@wwwdotorg.org> <20121112082546.GU22029@lunn.ch> <50A1212C.2080601@wwwdotorg.org> <20121112181947.GS24583@lunn.ch> <20121112184340.GA15643@lizard> <50A146E7.2040608@wwwdotorg.org> <20121115105954.GA17119@lizard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "devicetree-discuss" To: Linus Walleij , Anton Vorontsov Cc: Andrew Lunn , Jason Cooper , devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, jm-Pj/HzkgeCk7QXOPxS62xeg@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, gmbnomis-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:10:59 +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Anton Vorontsov > wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:35:36AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> > On 11/12/2012 11:43 AM, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > >> > >> >> Should the gpio driver fix its bindings then?.. Polarity is a quite > >> >> generic concept of a GPIO, and flags are there for a reason. I'd rather > >> >> prefer having > >> > > >> > There is no "GPIO driver" to fix; each GPIO driver has its own bindings, > >> > and unfortunately, some of the GPIO binding authors chose not to include > >> > any flags cell in the GPIO specifier (e.g. Samsung ARM SoCs IIRC, but > >> > there are probably more). > >> > >> So can I read this something like we have been too liberal with the > >> GPIO DT bindings and they are now a bit messy and need to be shaped > >> up? I don't know how to achieve that :-( > > > > I guess there's really no reason to panic. :) > > > > 'git grep gpio-cells Documentation/' shows just mrvl-gpio.txt and > > twl6040.txt having the wrong gpio-cells (i.e. 1). > > > > But even these can use one cells for both flags and pin number (unless you > > really have 4294967295 GPIOs per controller). > > > > FWIW, current Samsung SOCs use 3 and even 4 cells for a GPIO specifier, > > which is absolutely fine. Plus, the Samsung bindings do specify the > > inversion flag. So, unless we have a lot of other [undocumented] bindings, > > I don't see a big mess. And everything I currently see is fixable. > > I agree it's not that big a mess... > > I was more thinking about how to convince the people who can > test this to fix it up. +1. Most drivers use the same definitions for flags. New drivers should be pushed to do the same. And the few that don't can be fixed up individually. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc, P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies, Ltd. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: grant.likely@secretlab.ca (Grant Likely) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:17:04 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: Add simple poweroff-gpio driver In-Reply-To: References: <1352650891-18356-1-git-send-email-andrew@lunn.ch> <1352650891-18356-2-git-send-email-andrew@lunn.ch> <50A020C5.4070506@wwwdotorg.org> <20121112082546.GU22029@lunn.ch> <50A1212C.2080601@wwwdotorg.org> <20121112181947.GS24583@lunn.ch> <20121112184340.GA15643@lizard> <50A146E7.2040608@wwwdotorg.org> <20121115105954.GA17119@lizard> Message-ID: <20121121131704.D81703E096D@localhost> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:10:59 +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Anton Vorontsov > wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:35:36AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> > On 11/12/2012 11:43 AM, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > >> > >> >> Should the gpio driver fix its bindings then?.. Polarity is a quite > >> >> generic concept of a GPIO, and flags are there for a reason. I'd rather > >> >> prefer having > >> > > >> > There is no "GPIO driver" to fix; each GPIO driver has its own bindings, > >> > and unfortunately, some of the GPIO binding authors chose not to include > >> > any flags cell in the GPIO specifier (e.g. Samsung ARM SoCs IIRC, but > >> > there are probably more). > >> > >> So can I read this something like we have been too liberal with the > >> GPIO DT bindings and they are now a bit messy and need to be shaped > >> up? I don't know how to achieve that :-( > > > > I guess there's really no reason to panic. :) > > > > 'git grep gpio-cells Documentation/' shows just mrvl-gpio.txt and > > twl6040.txt having the wrong gpio-cells (i.e. 1). > > > > But even these can use one cells for both flags and pin number (unless you > > really have 4294967295 GPIOs per controller). > > > > FWIW, current Samsung SOCs use 3 and even 4 cells for a GPIO specifier, > > which is absolutely fine. Plus, the Samsung bindings do specify the > > inversion flag. So, unless we have a lot of other [undocumented] bindings, > > I don't see a big mess. And everything I currently see is fixable. > > I agree it's not that big a mess... > > I was more thinking about how to convince the people who can > test this to fix it up. +1. Most drivers use the same definitions for flags. New drivers should be pushed to do the same. And the few that don't can be fixed up individually. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc, P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies, Ltd.