Re: [PATCHv2 3/5] net: rfkill: gpio: remove gpio names

[Linus Walleij]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 03/04/2014 06:43 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:

>> If I understand the situation correctly it's like ACPI does not have named
>> GPIOs so keeping specifying this in DT GPIO bindings is counter-productive
>> to the work of abstracting the access to GPIO handlers so that drivers
>> need not know whether ACPI or DT is used for describing the hardware.
>
> For devices that already have both ACPI and DT bindings, we can't
> pretend they can be the same; they are already potentially different. We
> simply need to parse DT and ACPI differently, since that's the sway
> their bindings are defined.
>
> For any devices that don't have both ACPI and DT bindings, I agree we
> should certainly strive to make any new bindings aligned so we don't
> have to deal with this for them.
>
> However, we can't change the past.

Yeah, right, so for this very driver there are no bindings defined (yet)
and the only device tree I can find referencing it is the Tegra20-paz00
and it just use gpios = <>;

So in this case I think this patch is the right way forward, but I admit
I'm really uncertain in the general case.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/