Return-path: Received: from mail-ob0-f170.google.com ([209.85.214.170]:42323 "EHLO mail-ob0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755911AbaCEChu (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:37:50 -0500 Received: by mail-ob0-f170.google.com with SMTP id uz6so418088obc.29 for ; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 18:37:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <53168976.7000008@wwwdotorg.org> 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> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:37:50 +0800 Message-ID: (sfid-20140305_033813_072365_77948BFE) Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/5] net: rfkill: gpio: remove gpio names From: Linus Walleij To: Stephen Warren Cc: Heikki Krogerus , Johannes Berg , "David S. Miller" , Chen-Yu Tsai , 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 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. Yours, Linus Walleij