Re: [PATCHv2 3/5] net: rfkill: gpio: remove gpio names

[Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> On 03/04/2014 07:37 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>>> On 03/04/2014 06:43 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>
>>>> If I understand the situation correctly it's like ACPI does not have named
>>>> GPIOs so keeping specifying this in DT GPIO bindings is counter-productive
>>>> to the work of abstracting the access to GPIO handlers so that drivers
>>>> need not know whether ACPI or DT is used for describing the hardware.
>>>
>>> For devices that already have both ACPI and DT bindings, we can't
>>> pretend they can be the same; they are already potentially different. We
>>> simply need to parse DT and ACPI differently, since that's the sway
>>> their bindings are defined.
>>>
>>> For any devices that don't have both ACPI and DT bindings, I agree we
>>> should certainly strive to make any new bindings aligned so we don't
>>> have to deal with this for them.
>>>
>>> However, we can't change the past.
>>
>> Yeah, right, so for this very driver there are no bindings defined (yet)
>> and the only device tree I can find referencing it is the Tegra20-paz00
>> and it just use gpios = <>;
>>
>> So in this case I think this patch is the right way forward, but I admit
>> I'm really uncertain in the general case.
>
> If there are no bindings defined at all yet, then we can define both DT
> and ACPI bindings to use name-based GPIOs. Index-based lookups aren't a
> good way forward.

After Mark clarifying that ACPI is going to have named GPIOs I'm
totally aligned on this, so OK!

Yours,
Linus Walleij