On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 08:24, Joel Stanley <j...@jms.id.au> wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 17:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski <k...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > Convert the NXP PCA953x family of GPIO expanders bindings to device tree > > schema. > > > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k...@kernel.org> > > > +patternProperties: > > + "^(hog-[0-9]+|.+-hog(-[0-9]+)?)$": > > + type: object > > + properties: > > + gpio-hog: true > > + gpios: true > > + input: true > > + output-high: true > > + output-low: true > > + line-name: true > > + > > + required: > > + - gpio-hog > > + - gpios > > + > > > + usb3-sata-sel-hog { > > + gpio-hog; > > + gpios = <4 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; > > + output-low; > > + line-name = "usb3_sata_sel"; > > I would prefer we didn't require the addition of hte -hog prefix. It's > mostly just a matter of taste, but I can think of a few more concrete > reasons: > > We don't require -high or -low prefixes, so the node name doesn't need > to describe the properties that will be found below.
Thanks for the comments. It is not about properties (high or low) but the role of a device node. The node names should represent a generic class of device (ePAPR and device tree spec) and "hog" is such class. The Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/fsl-imx-gpio.yaml already uses such naming so the best would be to unify. > > Changing around node names for existing boards carries with it the > chance of userspace breakage (as sysfs paths change). I would prefer > we avoid that if possible. The impact on userspace is indeed important, but are you sure that hogs are visible to user-space via sysfs and configurable? I guess you think of deprecated CONFIG_GPIO_SYSFS? Rob, Any hints from you about hog-naming? Best regards, Krzysztof