[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56E82CE0.4010102@wwwdotorg.org>
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