linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Documentation: gpio: guidelines for bindings

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:18:32 +0900
From:	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: gpio: guidelines for bindings

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 October 2014 13:20:34 Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> +GPIO properties should be named "[<name>-]gpios", with <name> being the con_id
>> +argument that is passed to gpiod_get(). While a NULL con_id is accepted by the
>> +GPIO API for compatibility reasons (resolving to the "gpios" property), it is
>> +not allowed for new bindings.
>> +
>> +GPIO properties can contain one or more GPIO phandles, but only in exceptional
>> +cases should they contain more than one. If your device uses several GPIOs with
>> +distinct functions, reference each of them under its own property, giving it a
>> +meaningful name. The only case where an array of GPIOs is accepted is when
>> +several GPIOs serve the same function (e.g. a parallel data line). In that case
>> +individual GPIOs can be retrieved using gpiod_get_index().
>> +
>> +The exact meaning of each gpios property must be documented in the device tree
>>  binding for each device.
>
> The binding should be written in an OS neutral way, so it would be better to avoid
> direct references to Linux APIs in the part that specifies the allowed properties.
>
> Could you reword this so the Linux interfaces are described in an "implementation
> notes" section that is separate from the main part?

You're right - will fix this and resubmit. Thanks!
--
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/