[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <521D07E2.80209@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:11:14 -0600
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
CC: Fabian Vogt <fabian@...ter-vogt.de>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@....com>,
"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
"ian.campbell@...rix.com" <ian.campbell@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] gpio: New driver for LSI ZEVIO SoCs
On 08/27/2013 08:40 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 08:49:40PM +0100, Fabian Vogt wrote:
>> This driver supports the GPIO controller found in LSI ZEVIO SoCs.
>> It has been successfully tested on a TI nspire CX calculator.
>> ---
>> .../devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-zevio.txt | 18 ++
>> drivers/gpio/Kconfig | 6 +
>> drivers/gpio/Makefile | 1 +
>> drivers/gpio/gpio-zevio.c | 214 +++++++++++++++++++++
>> 4 files changed, 239 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-zevio.txt
>> create mode 100644 drivers/gpio/gpio-zevio.c
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-zevio.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-zevio.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..892f953
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-zevio.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
>> +Zevio GPIO controller
>> +
>> +Required properties:
>> +- compatible = "lsi,zevio-gpio"
>> +- reg = <BASEADDR SIZE>
>> +- #gpio-cells = <2>
>> +- gpio-controller;
>
> I take it there's nothing else known about at present that we might want
> to describe in future (e.g. input clocks)?
>
> This is more for the other dt maintainers, but I've seen a lot of
> variation in how we describe properties, and it would be nice to unify
> that. Does anyone fancy writing a document pushing for some standard
> terminology and formatting, or should I?
I was hoping that the DT schema system would tighten this up, since
there would be specific syntax in the schema to describe all these options.
I was thinking of writing a DT binding review checklist, but so far
haven't made time to do so. It'd probably be reasonable to include any
specific wording requirements for property descriptions in that document.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists