Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754607AbbBJJdM (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 10 Feb 2015 04:33:12 -0500
Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com ([209.85.213.169]:46188 "EHLO
	mail-ig0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753544AbbBJJdI convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 10 Feb 2015 04:33:08 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150123112122.GD30522@kuha.fi.intel.com>
References: <1418890998-23811-1-git-send-email-heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
 <4078818.ecVtLF3hjd@vostro.rjw.lan> <CAAVeFuJjMDfz7TZexkYnYrCGkAmRwubs32UhSPO-4qZWbMJjuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1564228.rcRekIyDUd@vostro.rjw.lan> <20150123112122.GD30522@kuha.fi.intel.com>
From: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:32:46 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAVeFuJUdigJC+WcriOi+SEYDz0HCzU=KatDPfmzdA6ytBOd_A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] gpio: support for GPIO forwarding
To: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2912
Lines: 83

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Heikki Krogerus
<heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 05:14:22PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:57:55 AM Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> > If we decide to go ahead with the solution proposed by this patch for
>> > practical reasons (which are good reasons indeed), I still have one
>> > problem with its current form.
>> >
>> > As the discussion highlighted, this is an ACPI problem, so I'd very
>> > much like it to be confined to the ACPI GPIO code, to be enabled only
>> > when ACPI is, and to use function names that start with acpi_gpio.
>>
>> I can agree with that.
>>
>> > The current implementation leverages platform lookup, making said lookup
>> > less efficient in the process and bringing confusion about its
>> > purpose. Although the two processes are indeed similar, they are
>> > separate things: one is a legitimate way to map GPIOs, the other is a
>> > fixup for broken firmware.
>> >
>> > I suppose we all agree this is a hackish fix, so let's confine it as
>> > much as we can.
>>
>> OK
>>
>> Heikki, any comments?
>
> I'm fine with that.
>
> That actually makes me think that we could then drop the lookup tables
> completely and use device properties instead with the help of "generic
> property" (attached):
>
> We would just need to agree on the format how to describe a gpio
> property, document it and of course convert the current users as
> usual. The format could be something like this as an example (I'm
> writing this out of my head so don't shoot me if you can see it would
> not work. Just an example):
>
> static const u32 example_gpio[] = { <gpio>, <flags>,爙;
>
> static struct dev_gen_prop example_prop[] =
>         {
>                 .type = DEV_PROP_U32,
>                 .name = "gpio,<con_id>",
>                 .nval = 2,
>                 .num = &example_gpio,
>         },
>         { },
> };
>
> static struct platform_device example_pdev = {
>         ...
>         .dev = {
>                 .gen_prop = &example_prop,
>         },
> }
>
>
> In gpiolib.c we would then, instead of going through the lookups,
> simply ask for that property:
>
>         ...
>         sprintf(propname, "gpio,%s", con_id);
>         device_property_read_u32_array(dev, propname, &val, 2);
>         ...
>         desc = gpio_to_desc(val[0]);
>         flags = val[1];
>         ...
>
>
> So this is just and idea. I think it would be relatively easy to
> implement. What do you guys think?

At first sight, that looks like a very good idea and a great use of
the device properties API. Are you willing to explore it further?
--
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/