lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 01/15] dt-bindings: gpio: convert bindings for NXP PCA953x family to dtschema
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 02:13:05PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 20:53-20200910, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 20:28, Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 19:57-20200910, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > + wakeup-source:
> > > > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag
> > > > +
> > > > +patternProperties:
> > > > + "^(hog-[0-9]+|.+-hog(-[0-9]+)?)$":
> > >
> > > I wonder if "hog" is too generic and might clash with "something-hog" in
> > > the future?
> >
> > This pattern is already used in
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/fsl-imx-gpio.yaml. It will
> > match only children and so far it did not find any other nodes in ARM
> > and ARM64 dts. I don't expect clashes. Also the question is then - if
> > one adds a child of GPIO expander named "foobar-hog" and it is not a
> > GPIO hog, then what is it?
>
> Probably a nitpick.. but then,.. I have'nt seen us depend on hierarchy
> for uniqueness of naming.. we choose for example "bus" no matter where
> in the hierarchy it falls in, as long it is a bus.. etc.. same argument
> holds good for properties as well.. "gpio-hog;" is kinda redundant if
> you think of it for a compatible that is already gpio ;)..
>
> I did'nt mean to de-rail the discussion, but was curious what the DT
> maintainers think..

Not really a fan of gpio-hog binding to have another type of hog nor can
I imagine what that would be.

Rob

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-15 21:49    [W:0.075 / U:0.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site