On Tuesday 21 January 2014, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > >> As discussed earlier in this thread I'm not sure the con_id is > >> suitable for labelling GPIOs. It'd be better to have a proper name > >> specified in DT/ACPI instead. > > > > +1 > > I wonder why you guys prefer to have the name defined in the GPIO > mapping. Having the driver decide the label makes it easier to look up > which GPIO does what in debugfs, whereas nothing prevents people to > name GPIOs whatever inadequate name they want in the device DT node. > What am I overlooking here? I should have another look at the debugfs representation, but isn't there a global namespace that gets used for all gpios? Neither the con_id nor the name that the driver picks would be globally unique and stable across kernel versions, so they don't make a good user interface. I think what we want here is a system-wide unique identifier for each gpio line that may get represented in debugfs, and use a new DT mechanism to communicate that. Arnd -- 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
