Hi,
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Maxime Ripard
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 02:47:29PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai
>> ---
>> .../devicetree/bindings/rfkill/rfkill-gpio.txt | 26
>> ++
>> net/rfkill/rfkill-gpio.c
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 02:47:29PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/rfkill/rfkill-gpio.txt | 26
> ++
> net/rfkill/rfkill-gpio.c | 23 +++
> 2 files changed, 49 insertio
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 07:50:06PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> I should have another look at the debugfs representation, but isn't
> there a global namespace that gets used for all gpios? Neither the
> con_id nor the name that the driver picks would be globally unique
> and stable across kernel
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:58:38AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>
> > The good (or bad, rather) thing about DT is that we can do whatever we
> > please with the new bindings: decide which name or which index
> > (doesn't matter here) a GP
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> The good (or bad, rather) thing about DT is that we can do whatever we
> please with the new bindings: decide which name or which index
> (doesn't matter here) a GPIO should have. However we don't have this
> control over ACPI, where not
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Tuesday 21 January 2014, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> As discussed earlier in this thread I'm not sure the con_id is
>>> suitable for labelling GPIOs. It'd be better to have a prop
On Tuesday 21 January 2014, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> >> As discussed earlier in this thread I'm not sure the con_id is
> >> suitable for labelling GPIOs. It'd be better to have a proper name
> >> specified in DT/ACPI instead.
> >
> > +1
>
> I wonder why you guys prefer to have the name defined i
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:53:13PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > I think a unified kernel API makes more sense for some subsystems than
> > others, and it depends a bit on the rate of adoption of APCI for drivers
> > that already have a DT binding (or vice versa, if that happens).
> >
> > GPI
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 January 2014, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 4:11 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Linus Walleij
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > I agree that's how it should be be done with the curren
On Tuesday 21 January 2014, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 4:11 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Linus Walleij
> > wrote:
> >
> > I agree that's how it should be be done with the current API if your
> > driver can obtain GPIOs from both ACPI and D
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 4:11 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Linus Walleij
> wrote:
>> gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(&pdev->dev, NULL, 0);
>> gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(&pdev->dev, NULL, 1);
>>
>> Heikki, are you OK with this change?
>>
>> I think this is actually
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
+- NAME_shutdown-gpios : GPIO phandle to shutdown control
+ (phandle must be the second)
>>>
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:11:56AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> >>> +- NAME_shutdown-gpios : GPIO phandle to shutdown control
> >>> + (phandle must b
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
+- NAME_shutdown-gpios : GPIO phandle to shutdown control
+ (phandle must be the second)
>>>
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> +- NAME_shutdown-gpios : GPIO phandle to shutdown control
>>> + (phandle must be the second)
>>> +- NAME_reset-gpios : GPIO phandle to reset control
>>>
On Friday 17 January 2014, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Friday 17 January 2014, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rfkill/rfkill-gpio.txt
> >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rfkill/rfkill-gpio.txt
> >
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 17 January 2014, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rfkill/rfkill-gpio.txt
>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rfkill/rfkill-gpio.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000..8a07ea4
>> --- /
On Friday 17 January 2014, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rfkill/rfkill-gpio.txt
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rfkill/rfkill-gpio.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..8a07ea4
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rfkill/rfkil
Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai
---
.../devicetree/bindings/rfkill/rfkill-gpio.txt | 26 ++
net/rfkill/rfkill-gpio.c | 23 +++
2 files changed, 49 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rfkill/rfkill-gpio.t
19 matches
Mail list logo
