From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932651AbcCJMHa (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:07:30 -0500
Received: from hqemgate15.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.64]:3248 "EHLO
	hqemgate15.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753708AbcCJMHL (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:07:11 -0500
X-PGP-Universal: processed;
	by hqnvupgp07.nvidia.com on Thu, 10 Mar 2016 04:05:49 -0800
Message-ID: <56E16053.60802@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:23:55 +0530
From: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Markus Pargmann <mpa@pengutronix.de>
CC: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>, <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        <robh+dt@kernel.org>, <pawel.moll@arm.com>, <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>, <treding@nvidia.com>,
        Benoit Parrot <bparrot@ti.com>,
        Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] gpio: of: Add support to have multiple gpios in gpio-hog
References: <1457438528-29054-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <56E05AA9.8000503@wwwdotorg.org> <56E11D34.60401@nvidia.com> <2337414.ntEtcfKnX0@hermes>
In-Reply-To: <2337414.ntEtcfKnX0@hermes>
X-Originating-IP: [10.19.65.30]
X-ClientProxiedBy: DRUKMAIL102.nvidia.com (10.25.59.20) To
 bgmail102.nvidia.com (10.25.59.11)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


On Thursday 10 March 2016 04:46 PM, Markus Pargmann wrote:
> On Thursday 10 March 2016 12:37:32 Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>> On Wednesday 09 March 2016 10:47 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 03/09/2016 06:20 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>> The problem with that is the description used when acquiring the GPIO
>>> is just "wlan_input", "wlan_output", or "wlan_control". There's
>>> nothing to indicate what those individual pins do (perhaps one is a
>>> reset signal, one is a regulator enable, etc.?) By requiring separate
>>> nodes for each GPIO, then the node name can provide a meaningful
>>> semantic name/description for each GPIO, which provides much more
>>> information.
>>>
>> On this case, we have already property "line-name" and passed the name
>> of the gpio via this property.
>> The property names is "line-name" which is good for one string. We can
>> support other property "line-names" with multiple string per GPIO index.
>>
>> line-names = "wlan-reset", "wlan-enable";
> There is currently a discussion about the future bindings for subnodes in GPIO
> controller nodes. Please have a look at these two mail threads:
>
> 	"Device tree binding documentation for gpio-switch"
> 	"gpio: of: Add support to have multiple gpios in gpio-hog"

Second one is this patch only. Is it by intention?

The binding details about the gpio-switch and names are given by 
property "lable". I think property "label" is standard way of going 
forward i.e. I post similar patch for gpio-keys device name from DT 
after got review comment.

So here,  we can have the gpio names  under property "label" or "labels".


Or am I missing anything?