[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCv0x2D6Y78XK7aeyyivcXqXZreHZd3kJc49tvtHx9eX+YH2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 12:28:21 -0700
From: Ilya Lipnitskiy <ilya.lipnitskiy@...il.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: property: do not create device links from *nr-gpios
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 10:40 AM Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 01:18:56PM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 1:10 PM Ilya Lipnitskiy
> > <ilya.lipnitskiy@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Saravana,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 1:01 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 8:14 PM Ilya Lipnitskiy
> > > > <ilya.lipnitskiy@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [<vendor>,]nr-gpios property is used by some GPIO drivers[0] to indicate
> > > > > the number of GPIOs present on a system, not define a GPIO. nr-gpios is
> > > > > not configured by #gpio-cells and can't be parsed along with other
> > > > > "*-gpios" properties.
> > > > >
> > > > > scripts/dtc/checks.c also has a special case for nr-gpio{s}. However,
> > > > > nr-gpio is not really special, so we only need to fix nr-gpios suffix
> > > > > here.
> > > >
> > > > The only example of this that I see is "snps,nr-gpios".
> > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/apm/apm-shadowcat.dtsi uses "apm,nr-gpios", with
> > > parsing code in drivers/gpio/gpio-xgene-sb.c. There is also code in
> > > drivers/gpio/gpio-adnp.c and drivers/gpio/gpio-mockup.c using
> > > "nr-gpios" without any vendor prefix.
> >
> > Ah ok. I just grepped the DT files. I'm not sure what Rob's position
> > is on supporting DT files not in upstream. Thanks for the
> > clarification.
>
> If it's something we had documented, then we have to support it
Do I read this correctly as a sort-of Ack of my proposed [PATCH v2] in
this thread, since it aligns the code with the published DT schema?
Ilya
Powered by blists - more mailing lists