Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] gpiolib: more quirks to handle legacy names

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:56:31PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 2:32 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 10:41:01PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > In preparation to converting several drivers to gpiod API, and to keep
> > > existing DTS working, this series adds additional quirks to locate
> > > gpio lines with legacy names.
> > >
> > > Additionally the quirk handling has been reworked (once again) to pull
> > > all simple renames (ones that do not involve change of indices or other
> > > complex manipulations) into a single quirk with a table containing
> > > transformations. This should make adding new quirks easier.
> > > When using legacy names gpiolib will emit a message to nudge users to
> > > update DTSes (when possible).
> > >
> > > Note that the last patch requires the following change from the OF tree:
> > >
> > >         88269151be67 ("of: base: make of_device_compatible_match() accept const device node")
> > >
> > > The change is also available in mainline - it has been merged in 6.1
> > > merge window.
> >
> > I was wondering if we can use the approach that ACPI chose for itself,
> > i.e.  the separate data that can be filled by the corresponding driver
> > and then GPIO OF common code may use it. In that case each driver knows
> > the exact list of compatible strings and associated quirks.
> 
> I actually deliverately chose the other way around, to centralize all quirks,
> so that drivers look nice and simple and the ugly historical errors of the
> device tree be hidden away in gpiolib-of.c.

This makes sense if and only if we may guarantee no quirks will appear in the
future. So, it may be true for DT, but I'm quite skeptical about ACPI...

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko