From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Walleij Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 4/6] net: rfkill: gpio: add device tree support Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:58:38 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1389941251-32692-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org> <201401211335.16885.arnd@arndb.de> Reply-To: linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Arnd Bergmann , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Heikki Krogerus , netdev , linux-wireless , linux-sunxi , linux-kernel , Maxime Ripard , Chen-Yu Tsai , Johannes Berg , Mika Westerberg , "David S. Miller" , "linux-gpio-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" To: Alexandre Courbot Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: netdev.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