From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Manivannan Sadhasivam Subject: Re: [dragonboard] [PATCH 1/1] dts: qcom: db820c: Add gpio-line-names property Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 19:01:45 +0530 Message-ID: <20180426133145.24dfnfarnuunf2wy@mani> References: <20180414031811.11351-1-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> <20180414031811.11351-2-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> <9acdd412-9b6d-ec63-c5ca-c5fa8d98d489@linaro.org> <20180416100306.5f6bzkzlsx3ufvw7@mani> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: Todor Tomov , Andy Gross , David Brown , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Catalin Marinas , Bjorn Andersson , Will Deacon , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , dragonboard@lists.96boards.org, "open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" , Linux ARM List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org Hi Linus, On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 03:23:57PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam > wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:48:59AM +0300, Todor Tomov wrote: > > >> > + * When the 96Board naming of a line and the schematic name of > >> > + * the same line are in conflict, the 96Board specification > >> > + * takes precedence, which means that the external UART on the > >> > + * LSEC is named UART0 while the schematic and SoC names this > >> > + * UART3. This is only for the informational lines i.e. "[FOO]", > >> > >> It seems to me that this can lead to some confusion for cases when > >> some schematic names have 96board names and others don't. (An > >> example below.) However I don't really see any better way to do > >> it. I'm wondering whether adding the schematic name in > >> the comment (for gpios which are named with 96board names) > >> can help a little. What do you think? Or any other idea? > >> > > > > Specifying the schematic names in comments is a good idea! > > > > Linus: Do you have any suggestion here? > > Go for this. > Thanks! > Generally ask the question: what does the user need? > > In this case, especially userspace libraries like mriaa (right name?) MRAA :) > should be able to work out-of-the-box without knowing what > board it is but know it has a 96board connector. > I have sent out v2, incorporating the review comments from Todor. Can you please review it? Thanks, Mani > Yours, > Linus Walleij From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org (Manivannan Sadhasivam) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 19:01:45 +0530 Subject: [dragonboard] [PATCH 1/1] dts: qcom: db820c: Add gpio-line-names property In-Reply-To: References: <20180414031811.11351-1-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> <20180414031811.11351-2-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> <9acdd412-9b6d-ec63-c5ca-c5fa8d98d489@linaro.org> <20180416100306.5f6bzkzlsx3ufvw7@mani> Message-ID: <20180426133145.24dfnfarnuunf2wy@mani> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Linus, On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 03:23:57PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam > wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:48:59AM +0300, Todor Tomov wrote: > > >> > + * When the 96Board naming of a line and the schematic name of > >> > + * the same line are in conflict, the 96Board specification > >> > + * takes precedence, which means that the external UART on the > >> > + * LSEC is named UART0 while the schematic and SoC names this > >> > + * UART3. This is only for the informational lines i.e. "[FOO]", > >> > >> It seems to me that this can lead to some confusion for cases when > >> some schematic names have 96board names and others don't. (An > >> example below.) However I don't really see any better way to do > >> it. I'm wondering whether adding the schematic name in > >> the comment (for gpios which are named with 96board names) > >> can help a little. What do you think? Or any other idea? > >> > > > > Specifying the schematic names in comments is a good idea! > > > > Linus: Do you have any suggestion here? > > Go for this. > Thanks! > Generally ask the question: what does the user need? > > In this case, especially userspace libraries like mriaa (right name?) MRAA :) > should be able to work out-of-the-box without knowing what > board it is but know it has a 96board connector. > I have sent out v2, incorporating the review comments from Todor. Can you please review it? Thanks, Mani > Yours, > Linus Walleij