[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140120081007.GA19123@xps8300>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:10:07 +0200
From: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 4/6] net: rfkill: gpio: add device tree support
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:11:56AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>
> >>> +- NAME_shutdown-gpios : GPIO phandle to shutdown control
> >>> + (phandle must be the second)
> >>> +- NAME_reset-gpios : GPIO phandle to reset control
> >>> +
> >>> +NAME must match the rfkill-name property. NAME_shutdown-gpios or
> >>> +NAME_reset-gpios, or both, must be defined.
> >>> +
> >>
> >> I don't understand this part. Why do you include the name in the
> >> gpios property, rather than just hardcoding the property strings
> >> to "shutdown-gpios" and "reset-gpios"?
> >
> > This quirk is a result of how gpiod_get_index implements device tree
> > lookup.
>
> Why can't it just have a single property "gpios", where the first
> element is the reset GPIO and the second is the shutdown GPIO?
>
> rfkill-gpio does this:
>
> gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(&pdev->dev, rfkill->reset_name, 0);
> gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(&pdev->dev, rfkill->shutdown_name, 1);
>
> The passed con ID name parameter is only there for the device
> tree case it seems. (ACPI ignores it.) So what about you just
> don't pass it at all and patch it to do like this instead:
>
> gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(&pdev->dev, NULL, 0);
> gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(&pdev->dev, NULL, 1);
>
> Heikki, are you OK with this change?
Yes, definitely. That is much cleaner.
Thanks,
--
heikki
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists