From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754838AbaAVJ6l (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jan 2014 04:58:41 -0500 Received: from mail-oa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.219.52]:53954 "EHLO mail-oa0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753168AbaAVJ6j (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jan 2014 04:58:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1389941251-32692-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org> <201401211335.16885.arnd@arndb.de> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:58:38 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 4/6] net: rfkill: gpio: add device tree support From: Linus Walleij To: Alexandre Courbot Cc: Arnd Bergmann , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Heikki Krogerus , netdev , linux-wireless , linux-sunxi , linux-kernel , Maxime Ripard , Chen-Yu Tsai , Johannes Berg , Mika Westerberg , "David S. Miller" , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > The good (or bad, rather) thing about DT is that we can do whatever we > please with the new bindings: decide which name or which index > (doesn't matter here) a GPIO should have. However we don't have this > control over ACPI, where nothing guarantees that the same index will > be used for the same GPIO function. It's not like ACPI will impose some tables on us and expect us to use them as-is no matter how crazy they are. Then indeed the whole idea of unifying ACPI and DT accessors would be moot and it would only work by mistake or as a good joke. The situation with ACPI is just like with DT, it is assumed that the author of these tables also look at the Linux kernel drivers to figure out what argument goes where and we can influence them. Yours, Linus Walleij