linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 3/5] net: rfkill: gpio: remove gpio names

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <CACRpkdaYuZ5bXo7djOv04oyHPAFbO=pKfR7L7UBY+kZqZUHfmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 7 Mar 2014 11:41:11 +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 10:59 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
> On 03/04/2014 07:37 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 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
--
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/