+Linus W
On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 05:31:13PM +0000, Martyn Welch wrote:
> This patch adds documentation for the gpio-switch binding. This binding
> provides a mechanism to bind named links to gpio, with the primary
> purpose of enabling standardised access to switches that might be standard
> across a group of devices but implemented differently on each device.
This is good and what I suggested, but it now makes me wonder if switch
is generic enough. This boils down to needing to expose single gpio
lines to userspace with a defined function/use. IIRC, there's been some
discussion about this before along with improving the userspace
interface for GPIO in general. So I'd like to get Linus' thoughts on
this.
> Signed-off-by: Martyn Welch <martyn.welch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/misc/gpio-switch.txt | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/gpio-switch.txt
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/gpio-switch.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/gpio-switch.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..13528bd
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/gpio-switch.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
> +Device-Tree bindings for gpio attached switches.
> +
> +This provides a mechanism to provide a named link to specified gpios. This can
> +be useful in instances such as when theres a need to monitor a switch, which is
> +common across a family of devices, but attached to different gpios and even
> +implemented in different ways on differnet devices.
> +
> +Required properties:
> + - compatible = "gpio-switch";
> +
> +Each signal is represented as a sub-node of "gpio-switch". The naming of
> +sub-nodes is arbitrary.
> +
> +Required sub-node properties:
> +
> + - label: Name to be given to gpio switch.
> + - gpios: OF device-tree gpio specification.
> +
> +Optional sub-node properties:
> +
> + - read-only: Boolean flag to mark the gpio as read-only, i.e. the line
> + should not be driven by the host.
In terms a a switch use, allowing driving it would be an override of the
switch. Is that the idea here?
> +
> +Example nodes:
> +
> + gpio-switch {
> + compatible = "gpio-switch";
Both from a binding and driver perspective, there is no point in
grouping these. Each node can simply have this compatible string.
> +
> + write-protect {
> + label = "write-protect";
> + gpios = <&gpx3 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> + read-only;
> + };
> +
> + developer-switch {
> + label = "developer-switch";
> + gpios = <&gpx1 3 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> + read-only;
> + };
> +
> + recovery-switch {
> + label = "recovery-switch";
> + gpios = <&gpx0 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> + read-only;
> + };
> + };
> +
> --
> 2.1.4
>
--
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
