On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Maxime Ripard > <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Chen-Yu, >> >> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 02:41:35PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >>> This patch provides of_get_gpiod_flags_by_name(), which looks up GPIO >>> phandles by name only, through gpios/gpio-names, and not by index. >> >> IIRC, gpios only uses the *-gpios properties, and not gpios/gpio-names >> pattern seen on various other things. >> >> Is it some new property you introduce? If so, please add it to the >> documentation. >> >> Now, I'm not sure that having two distinct representations of GPIOs in >> the DT is a good thing. Yes, it's looking odd compared to other >> similar bindings, but it's what we have to deal with. > > Mmmm I *think* I somehow remember a discussion about this topic > recently, but I cannot find it. Maybe Chen-yu could point us to the > conclusion of this discussion and the rationale for (re)implementing > named GPIOs this way? Aha, here maybe: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/1/21/164 However I don't see a clear conclusion that we should implement that scheme. Not that I am strongly against it, but I'd like to see a practical purpose for it. -- 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
