lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] net: rfkill: gpio: remove gpio names
On 02/25/2014 02:13 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:35 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>> On 02/20/2014 06:55 PM, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>
>>> That's correct. However using con_id to pass this results in different
>>> behavior across DT and ACPI. A better way is to export the labeling
>>> function so consumers can set meaningful labels themselves.
...
> As in tegra30-beaver.dts...
>
> sdhci@78000000 {
> status = "okay";
> cd-gpios = <&gpio TEGRA_GPIO(I, 5) GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> wp-gpios = <&gpio TEGRA_GPIO(T, 3) GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> power-gpios = <&gpio TEGRA_GPIO(D, 7) GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> bus-width = <4>;
> };
>
> Instead of passing the GPIOs as index 0,1,2 they are named
> and I do admit this has a nice "things are under control" aspect
> to it.
>
> In the ACPI case the con_id is not used for anything.
>
> So it is basically there to satisfy the habit in some device
> tree bindings to name gpio arrays instead of just passing gpios = <...>;
> (The latter should be encouraged going forward.)

Do you really want to switch from named GPIO lookups to index-based GPIO
lookups? Index-based lookups make it much harder to extend the DT
binding in a backwards-compatible fashion, especially in the face of
optional GPIOs (of which all of CD, WP, power are).

If we switch to a single gpios property, I'd assert we should still do
named-based lookups using a parallel gpio-names property, just like most
(all?) other resource types now support. If we do that, we'll still need
the name parameter.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-25 19:01    [W:0.121 / U:10.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site