On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Linus Walleij > <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx> 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. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx> >> >> Like Alexandre I have no strong opinion on this alternative scheme. > > Yeah this new lookup scheme probably does no harm, but I think it > should be a little bit more motivated as it is, after all, introducing > more potential confusion for DT users. > > It does not look like this new lookup scheme is necessary to Chen-Yu's > patchset and that he could as well have used the current one. Right > now there is only one way to define GPIOs - if we introduce a second > one, then which one should new DT users choose? Which one looks > better? I can already endless fights taking place over this. I will pull out the two patches. > Does this new lookup help with some of the existing problems we have > like ACPI/DT lookup compatibility? I hope they will be compatible with ACPI named gpios, whenever support for ACPI named properties extension lands. But that really depends on the ACPI implementation. For now I think it's best that I just hold on to these. We can revisit the discussion later if needed. > I just need to be given one practical reason to give my ack. Thanks 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
