Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754905AbaKNJTv (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Nov 2014 04:19:51 -0500 Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com ([209.85.223.174]:43971 "EHLO mail-ie0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754660AbaKNJTs (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Nov 2014 04:19:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1413922198-29373-1-git-send-email-bparrot@ti.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:19:47 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC Patch] gpio: add GPIO hogging mechanism From: Linus Walleij To: Alexandre Courbot Cc: Benoit Parrot , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Pantelis Antoniou , Jiri Prchal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Benoit Parrot wrote: > + line_b: line_b { > + line_b { > + gpios = <6 0>; > + output-low; > + line-name = "foo-bar-gpio"; > + }; > + }; > (...) > > I wonder if such usage of child nodes could not interfere with GPIO > drivers (existing or to be) that need to use child nodes for other > purposes. Right now there is no way to distinguish a hog node from a > node that serves another purpose, and that might become a problem in > the future. Yes, so I have suggested a hog-something; keyword in there. As long as the children don't have any compatible-strings we can decide pretty much how they should be handled internally. Are there custom drivers with child nodes inside the main chip today? Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/