Return-path: Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:49666 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755305AbaCEC7X (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:59:23 -0500 Message-ID: <53169304.9080002@wwwdotorg.org> (sfid-20140305_035944_270142_F308A1A0) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 19:59:16 -0700 From: Stephen Warren MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Walleij 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" Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/5] net: rfkill: gpio: remove gpio names 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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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.