[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 1/7] gpiolib: gpiolib-of: Implement device tree gpio-names based lookup
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Chen-Yu Tsai w...@csie.org wrote: This patch provides of_get_gpiod_flags_by_name(), which looks up GPIO phandles by name only, through gpios/gpio-names, and not by index. Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai w...@csie.org Like Alexandre I have no strong opinion on this alternative scheme. However if I shall apply this patch I want ACKs from the DT maintainers with them expressing that they want things to look like this going forward. Otherwise the set is stalled right here. Yours, Linus Walleij -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups linux-sunxi group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to linux-sunxi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 1/7] gpiolib: gpiolib-of: Implement device tree gpio-names based lookup
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Maxime Ripard maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com wrote: Hi Chen-Yu, On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 02:41:35PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: This patch provides of_get_gpiod_flags_by_name(), which looks up GPIO phandles by name only, through gpios/gpio-names, and not by index. IIRC, gpios only uses the *-gpios properties, and not gpios/gpio-names pattern seen on various other things. Is it some new property you introduce? If so, please add it to the documentation. Now, I'm not sure that having two distinct representations of GPIOs in the DT is a good thing. Yes, it's looking odd compared to other similar bindings, but it's what we have to deal with. Mmmm I *think* I somehow remember a discussion about this topic recently, but I cannot find it. Maybe Chen-yu could point us to the conclusion of this discussion and the rationale for (re)implementing named GPIOs this way? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups linux-sunxi group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to linux-sunxi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 1/7] gpiolib: gpiolib-of: Implement device tree gpio-names based lookup
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Alexandre Courbot gnu...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Maxime Ripard maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com wrote: Hi Chen-Yu, On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 02:41:35PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: This patch provides of_get_gpiod_flags_by_name(), which looks up GPIO phandles by name only, through gpios/gpio-names, and not by index. IIRC, gpios only uses the *-gpios properties, and not gpios/gpio-names pattern seen on various other things. Is it some new property you introduce? If so, please add it to the documentation. Now, I'm not sure that having two distinct representations of GPIOs in the DT is a good thing. Yes, it's looking odd compared to other similar bindings, but it's what we have to deal with. Mmmm I *think* I somehow remember a discussion about this topic recently, but I cannot find it. Maybe Chen-yu could point us to the conclusion of this discussion and the rationale for (re)implementing named GPIOs this way? Aha, here maybe: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/1/21/164 However I don't see a clear conclusion that we should implement that scheme. Not that I am strongly against it, but I'd like to see a practical purpose for it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups linux-sunxi group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to linux-sunxi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 1/7] gpiolib: gpiolib-of: Implement device tree gpio-names based lookup
Hi, On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Alexandre Courbot gnu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Alexandre Courbot gnu...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Maxime Ripard maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com wrote: Hi Chen-Yu, On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 02:41:35PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: This patch provides of_get_gpiod_flags_by_name(), which looks up GPIO phandles by name only, through gpios/gpio-names, and not by index. IIRC, gpios only uses the *-gpios properties, and not gpios/gpio-names pattern seen on various other things. Is it some new property you introduce? If so, please add it to the documentation. Now, I'm not sure that having two distinct representations of GPIOs in the DT is a good thing. Yes, it's looking odd compared to other similar bindings, but it's what we have to deal with. Mmmm I *think* I somehow remember a discussion about this topic recently, but I cannot find it. Maybe Chen-yu could point us to the conclusion of this discussion and the rationale for (re)implementing named GPIOs this way? Aha, here maybe: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/1/21/164 They're also mentioned in: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/2/25/581 However I don't see a clear conclusion that we should implement that scheme. Not that I am strongly against it, but I'd like to see a practical purpose for it. Again no clear conclusion on this. I wrote this as it was one possible way out of the index-based GPIO stuff. Hopefully others will chime in and we can decide whether this is what we want or not. Cheers ChenYu -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups linux-sunxi group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to linux-sunxi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 1/7] gpiolib: gpiolib-of: Implement device tree gpio-names based lookup
Hi Chen-Yu, On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 02:41:35PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: This patch provides of_get_gpiod_flags_by_name(), which looks up GPIO phandles by name only, through gpios/gpio-names, and not by index. IIRC, gpios only uses the *-gpios properties, and not gpios/gpio-names pattern seen on various other things. Is it some new property you introduce? If so, please add it to the documentation. Now, I'm not sure that having two distinct representations of GPIOs in the DT is a good thing. Yes, it's looking odd compared to other similar bindings, but it's what we have to deal with. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
