Return-path: Received: from mail-ob0-f176.google.com ([209.85.214.176]:49315 "EHLO mail-ob0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751963AbaCGDlM (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2014 22:41:12 -0500 Received: by mail-ob0-f176.google.com with SMTP id wp18so3592618obc.35 for ; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 19:41:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <53169304.9080002@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> <53169304.9080002@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 11:41:11 +0800 Message-ID: (sfid-20140307_044135_054426_66712C3A) 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 10:59 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! Yours, Linus Walleij