linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] gpio-vx855: Add device tree binding

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110921163738.GK4374@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:37:39 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc:	Daniel Drake <dsd@...top.org>, sameo@...ux.intel.com,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dilinger@...ued.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] gpio-vx855: Add device tree binding

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:29:06AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 01:50:52PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Shouldn't we just have a property for the polarity?

> A flags cell in gpio specifiers (and irq specifiers for that matter) is
> well established practice.

Oh, well :(  We need to establish what the general style is for stuff
like this, it feels like there's frequent conflict between existing
practice and what people want to do with new bindings (in addition to
the cases like the arrays where there's some issues in general).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/