[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2479604.mfbgZIQjOA@avalon>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 16:10:54 +0200
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
Cc: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@...panasonic.com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: gpio: fix bindings document
Hi Rob,
On Thursday 15 January 2015 08:07:18 Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:52 AM, Masahiro Yamada
>
> <yamada.m@...panasonic.com> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@...panasonic.com>
>
> Perhaps some explanation. You can't just remove properties. Please
> explain to what extent the old/wrong name is used. This patch is only
> okay if there are no users of gpio-phandle.
As far as I understand the patch just fixes a typo. There has never been a
gpio-phandle for GPIO controllers, only for GPIO consumers.
> > ---
> >
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt | 5 +++--
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt index b9bd1d6..f7a158d
> > 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt
> > @@ -69,7 +69,8 @@ GPIO pin number, and GPIO flags as accepted by the
> > "qe_pio_e" gpio-controller.>
> > ----------------------------------
> >
> > A gpio-specifier should contain a flag indicating the GPIO polarity;
> > active->
> > -high or active-low. If it does, the follow best practices should be
> > followed: +high or active-low. If it does, the following best practices
> > should be>
> > +followed:
> > The gpio-specifier's polarity flag should represent the physical level at
> > the GPIO controller that achieves (or represents, for inputs) a
> > logically asserted>
> > @@ -147,7 +148,7 @@ contains information structures as follows:
> > numeric-gpio-range ::=
> >
> > <pinctrl-phandle> <gpio-base> <pinctrl-base>
> > <count>
> >
> > named-gpio-range ::= <pinctrl-phandle> <gpio-base> '<0 0>'
> >
> > - gpio-phandle : phandle to pin controller node.
> > + pinctrl-phandle : phandle to pin controller node
> >
> > gpio-base : Base GPIO ID in the GPIO controller
> > pinctrl-base : Base pinctrl pin ID in the pin controller
> > count : The number of GPIOs/pins in this range
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
--
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