Return-path: Received: from mail-vc0-f176.google.com ([209.85.220.176]:43989 "EHLO mail-vc0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751087AbaCGDoN (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2014 22:44:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1393330950-7283-1-git-send-email-heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> <1393330950-7283-4-git-send-email-heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> <530D218E.9010007@wwwdotorg.org> <53168976.7000008@wwwdotorg.org> <53169304.9080002@wwwdotorg.org> From: Chen-Yu Tsai Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 11:43:52 +0800 Message-ID: (sfid-20140307_044418_191672_A00B24A1) Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/5] net: rfkill: gpio: remove gpio names To: Linus Walleij Cc: Stephen Warren , Heikki Krogerus , Johannes Berg , "David S. Miller" , Rhyland Klein , Marc Dietrich , Arnd Bergmann , Alexandre Courbot , linux-wireless , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 03/04/2014 07:37 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>> On 03/04/2014 06:43 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: >>> >>>>> If I understand the situation correctly it's like ACPI does not have named >>>>> GPIOs so keeping specifying this in DT GPIO bindings is counter-productive >>>>> to the work of abstracting the access to GPIO handlers so that drivers >>>>> need not know whether ACPI or DT is used for describing the hardware. >>>> >>>> For devices that already have both ACPI and DT bindings, we can't >>>> pretend they can be the same; they are already potentially different. We >>>> simply need to parse DT and ACPI differently, since that's the sway >>>> their bindings are defined. >>>> >>>> For any devices that don't have both ACPI and DT bindings, I agree we >>>> should certainly strive to make any new bindings aligned so we don't >>>> have to deal with this for them. >>>> >>>> However, we can't change the past. >>> >>> Yeah, right, so for this very driver there are no bindings defined (yet) >>> and the only device tree I can find referencing it is the Tegra20-paz00 >>> and it just use gpios = <>; >>> >>> So in this case I think this patch is the right way forward, but I admit >>> I'm really uncertain in the general case. >> >> If there are no bindings defined at all yet, then we can define both DT >> and ACPI bindings to use name-based GPIOs. Index-based lookups aren't a >> good way forward. > > After Mark clarifying that ACPI is going to have named GPIOs I'm > totally aligned on this, so OK! Glad to hear this, but is it possible to get rid of the index in current drivers? Or change the behavior to name-based OR index-based lookups. This might break any DTs that have multiple GPIOs defined under one property though. Cheers ChenYu