On 2017-07-12 11:30, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 2017-07-10 16:23, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> On 2017-07-10 16:09, Linus Walleij wrote: >>>> This is not a legal device tree property, because its binding has >>>> not been reviewed and approved, nor does it exist in any device >>>> tree binding document. >>>> >>>> It is further wrong, because it is added to the GPIO offset which >>>> is by definition controller-local. >> >> BTW, I don't get this second statement. The parameter passed in is >> controlling which pin of the GPIO device can be controlled by the driver >> at all. And that's also a very private interface between 8250_exar and >> gpio-exar: the former tells the latter which pins are physically >> available to drive, because the former operates the others already. > > Then it seems like the big confusion here is the "linux,*" prefix in > the DT binding. > > We only use that for information which is necessary evil Linux-specific > stuff. > > What you are talking about should be hardware-and-vendor specific > info and prefixed "exar,*". "exar," or rather "gpio-exar,", like in [1]? > > Can you propose a patch simply changing the binding and try to get > the DT maintainers ACK on it? Sure, will do then. Jan [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg1407975.html -- 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
