Hi, On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 They're also mentioned in: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/2/25/581 > 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. Again no clear conclusion on this. I wrote this as it was one possible way out of the index-based GPIO stuff. Hopefully others will chime in and we can decide whether this is what we want or not. Cheers ChenYu -- 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
