From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754821AbaDPHHY (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Apr 2014 03:07:24 -0400 Received: from mail-vc0-f169.google.com ([209.85.220.169]:63626 "EHLO mail-vc0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753489AbaDPHHU (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Apr 2014 03:07:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1397544101-18135-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org> <1397544101-18135-2-git-send-email-wens@csie.org> <20140415142024.GD3207@lukather> From: Alexandre Courbot Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:06:59 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] gpiolib: gpiolib-of: Implement device tree gpio-names based lookup To: Maxime Ripard Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai , Linus Walleij , Johannes Berg , "John W. Linville" , Arnd Bergmann , Heikki Krogerus , Mika Westerberg , Stephen Warren , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , linux-wireless , netdev , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-sunxi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Maxime Ripard > wrote: >> Hi Chen-Yu, >> >> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 02:41:35PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >>> This patch provides of_get_gpiod_flags_by_name(), which looks up GPIO >>> phandles by name only, through gpios/gpio-names, and not by index. >> >> IIRC, gpios only uses the *-gpios properties, and not gpios/gpio-names >> pattern seen on various other things. >> >> Is it some new property you introduce? If so, please add it to the >> documentation. >> >> Now, I'm not sure that having two distinct representations of GPIOs in >> the DT is a good thing. Yes, it's looking odd compared to other >> similar bindings, but it's what we have to deal with. > > Mmmm I *think* I somehow remember a discussion about this topic > recently, but I cannot find it. Maybe Chen-yu could point us to the > conclusion of this discussion and the rationale for (re)implementing > named GPIOs this way? Aha, here maybe: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/1/21/164 However I don't see a clear conclusion that we should implement that scheme. Not that I am strongly against it, but I'd like to see a practical purpose for it.