Hi Bjoern, >>> + bt-disable-n-gpios = <&pm8994_gpios 19 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; >> >> can we use a common name here. I think that Nokia and Broadcom drivers >> define one. And if this is the enable/shutdown GPIO, we should name it >> consistently across all manufacturers. It essentially does the same on >> Bluetooth UART chips no matter what chip is behind them. >> > > Broadcomm has a device-wakup-gpios and Nokia has bluetooth-wakup-gpios. > It might be that these behave in the same way, but from the description > they only trigger the wakeup.
that is something that we might need to start fixing. I really prefer if we name the GPIOs a bit more consistent. > The reason for the proposed naming here is that the pin is named > "BT_DISABLE_N" in the datasheet. That is not a reason I buy. So the next board comes around that labels it in the data sheet BT_DISABLE_YEAH_SUPER_GREAT and you send me a patch to the driver to look for that name. If the GPIO does the same thing, I couldn’t care less what the data sheet says. That might be a comment in the DT file, but it should not pollute the driver code. A new board should not require driver changes, you just ship a new DT for that board and an existing driver hopefully just does the job. No matter how someone named a GPIO in a piece of paper. Regards Marcel
