On 11/19/2013 03:17 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 11/19/2013 02:45 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> This topic seems to come up from time to time. >>> Unfortunately the last time it coincided with the move of the mailing list >>> from ozlabs to vger, causing the mailing list archives not to have captured >>> the full discussion. >>> >>> Is there anything definitive/usable out there? >> >> What do you mean by "gpio-generic DT bindings"? A generic binding for a >> controller, or something else? I think it's best to have a specific >> binding for each individual controller, so it's always possible to know >> exactly which controller is present. Now, all the binding definitions >> should all look the same or as similar as possible for consistency... > > I mean DT bindings and DT support for drivers/gpio/gpio-generic.c. We should have DT bindings for particular HW, not for a driver. After all, DT describes HW, not a particular OS's driver. The path to adding DT support to gpio-generic.c is to define a binding for the particular HW you're interested in (which would quite likely only contain compatible, reg, and perhaps some other standard properties like interrupts, clocks, power domains, etc.). There would be one binding and compatible value for each different HW block you want to support, although they could all share the same schema and definition. Then update gpio-generic.c to bind to that (those) compatible value(s), and have some kind of table that maps from compatible value to whatever configuration structure gpio-generic.c uses internally. -- 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
