[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdYfQoDmPX0He4J2Sn2wgQn2hHoHyPqnStLRVqrvi=M+-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:37:50 +0800
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
Cc: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
Rhyland Klein <rklein@...dia.com>,
Marc Dietrich <marvin24@....de>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/5] net: rfkill: gpio: remove gpio names
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> 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
--
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