On 08/27/2013 08:40 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 08:49:40PM +0100, Fabian Vogt wrote: >> This driver supports the GPIO controller found in LSI ZEVIO SoCs. >> It has been successfully tested on a TI nspire CX calculator. >> --- >> .../devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-zevio.txt | 18 ++ >> drivers/gpio/Kconfig | 6 + >> drivers/gpio/Makefile | 1 + >> drivers/gpio/gpio-zevio.c | 214 +++++++++++++++++++++ >> 4 files changed, 239 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-zevio.txt >> create mode 100644 drivers/gpio/gpio-zevio.c >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-zevio.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-zevio.txt >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..892f953 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-zevio.txt >> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ >> +Zevio GPIO controller >> + >> +Required properties: >> +- compatible = "lsi,zevio-gpio" >> +- reg = <BASEADDR SIZE> >> +- #gpio-cells = <2> >> +- gpio-controller; > > I take it there's nothing else known about at present that we might want > to describe in future (e.g. input clocks)? > > This is more for the other dt maintainers, but I've seen a lot of > variation in how we describe properties, and it would be nice to unify > that. Does anyone fancy writing a document pushing for some standard > terminology and formatting, or should I? I was hoping that the DT schema system would tighten this up, since there would be specific syntax in the schema to describe all these options. I was thinking of writing a DT binding review checklist, but so far haven't made time to do so. It'd probably be reasonable to include any specific wording requirements for property descriptions in that document. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
