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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:40:16 -0600 From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> To: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com> Cc: linus.walleij@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, pawel.moll@....com, mark.rutland@....com, mpa@...gutronix.de, treding@...dia.com, bparrot@...com, acourbot@...dia.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/5] gpio: DT: Rephrase "gpios" of hog node to support multiple gpios On 03/15/2016 12:37 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > > On Monday 14 March 2016 10:01 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 03/11/2016 06:43 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >>> The property "gpios" of GPIO hog node support the multiple GPIO entries. >>> Rephrase the details of this property for this new support. >>> >>> Add details of new property "label" for GPIO label name. >> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt >>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt >> >>> Optional properties: >>> - line-name: The GPIO label name. If not present the node name is >>> used. >>> +- label: The GPIO lable name. This can have multiple string for >>> GPIO >>> + label names to match with the GPIOs in "gpios" properties. >>> + If line-name is prosent than name is taken from line-name. If >>> + it is not then the name will be taken from label. If both are >>> + not available then node name is used for GPIO label name. >> >> Why are there two properties for the same thing? Why not just allow >> line-name to have multiple entries instead of introducing a new property? >> > > We can use the lin-names also but per disucssion on the patch V1 of > gpio: of: Add support to have multiple gpios in gpio-hog > > Markus suggested the discussion about the discussion > (https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/3/10/194): > "Device tree binding documentation for gpio-switch" > > > and on that, label is used. Also for names, "label" is going to very > common. > > So I added new property "label" to support multiple names. It makes sense to standardize on a common name for new bindings, but this binding has already picked a name. It'd be much simpler for anyone looking at the binding (and backwards-compatibility) to just stick with it. We have to support the old name forever no matter what. Supporting two different names will just be confusing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists