From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Walleij Subject: Re: [dragonboard] [PATCH 1/1] dts: qcom: db820c: Add gpio-line-names property Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 15:23:57 +0200 Message-ID: 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="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180416100306.5f6bzkzlsx3ufvw7@mani> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Manivannan Sadhasivam 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 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. Generally ask the question: what does the user need? In this case, especially userspace libraries like mriaa (right name?) should be able to work out-of-the-box without knowing what board it is but know it has a 96board connector. Yours, Linus Walleij From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linus.walleij@linaro.org (Linus Walleij) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 15:23:57 +0200 Subject: [dragonboard] [PATCH 1/1] dts: qcom: db820c: Add gpio-line-names property In-Reply-To: <20180416100306.5f6bzkzlsx3ufvw7@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> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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. Generally ask the question: what does the user need? In this case, especially userspace libraries like mriaa (right name?) should be able to work out-of-the-box without knowing what board it is but know it has a 96board connector. Yours, Linus Walleij