On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 09:04:09AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > 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> Applied, thanks. Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
