[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151019154324.GN32532@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:43:24 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Terje Bergström <tbergstrom@...dia.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>, Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PWM List <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux USB List <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 04:29:40PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> I don't know that there *is* a coherent plan here to address it all.
>
> Certainly, we *will* need subsystems to have firmware-specific
> knowledge in some cases. Take GPIO as an example; ACPI *has* a way to
> describe GPIO, and properties which reference GPIO pins are intended to
> work through that — while in DT, properties which reference GPIO pins
> will have different contents. They'll be compatible at the driver
> level, in the sense that there's a call to get a given GPIO given the
> property name, but the subsystems *will* be doing different things
> behind the scenes.
It's a bit ironic that you've chosen GPIO as an example there. The
"new" GPIO API (the gpiod_* stuff) only has a fwnode way to get the
gpio descriptor. There's no of_* method.
I'd like to use the gpiod_* stuff, but I feel that my options are
rather limited: either use fwnode_get_named_gpiod() with
&dev->of_node->fwnode, which seems like a hack by going underneath
the covers of how fwnode is (partially) implemented with DT, or by
using of_get_named_gpio() and the converting the gpio number to a
descriptor via gpio_to_desc(). Both feel very hacky.
If ACPI already handles GPIOs internally, then I'm left wondering
why GPIO descriptor stuff went down the fwnode route at all - it
seems rather pointless in this case, and it seems to make the use
of the gpiod* interfaces where we _do_ need to use it (DT) harder
and more hacky.
--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
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