On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/06/2016 11:28 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:25:07PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> >>> From: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> According to the Tegra TRM, GPIOs are aggregated into /ports/ of 8 GPIOs, >>> not into /banks/. Fix <dt-bindings/gpio/tegra-gpio.h> to correctly >>> reflect >>> this naming convention. While this seems like silly churn, it will become >>> slightly more important once we introduce the GPIO binding for upcoming >>> Tegra chips. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> include/dt-bindings/gpio/tegra-gpio.h | 68 >>> +++++++++++++++++------------------ >>> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) >> >> >> It's not clear to me where this should be applied. This is technically >> part of the GPIO controller bindings, in which case it'd need to go via >> the GPIO tree. I'm fine with taking it through the Tegra tree, too, but >> in case you agree that it should go through the GPIO tree: >> >> Acked-by: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx> > > I typically consider bindings part of the SoC code-base they related to, so > I'd imagine this going through the Tegra tree. I didn't Cc LinusW on the > patch because of that thinking and oversight, but have done so now just in > case he feels strongly. No strong opinion, only time I care is when we merge a new driver and it #includes <dt-bindings/...>. Take it through the tegra tree. Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> Yours, Linus Walleij -- 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
