On Monday, December 6, 2021, Joel Stanley wrote: >On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 15:51, Andrei Kartashev ><a.kartashev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > >> > Can we utilize >> > [ gpio naming ] >> > to get some consistent naming across the GPIO’s on OpenBMC >machines? >> > >> >> Some names here are standard for Intel daemons like >x86-power-control, >> host-error-monitor, pfr-manager, IntrusionSensor and so on. Other >lines >> just called same as in schematics to make it easy for our engineers >to >> understand what does it refer to. BTW, most of the lines there not >used >> by software and appeared just because dts files are supposed to be >> hardware description and thus we describe all we have in >schematics. >> >> We can rename all this according to guide you mention, but are you >> sure, there is any sense to do so? >> Keep in mind, currently there are lot of dts files which also don't >> follow convention, so I believe, it is unnecessary work. > >I have a strong preference for using the naming document. It provides >consistency, which makes it easier to review. I'm encouraging that >for >any new dts. > >If you think it makes the descriptions less useful for your platform >then that's a reasonable reason to not follow the convention. > Actually, what I would prefer is that these well established signal names that appear in the x86 industry servers be enumerated in the gpio naming document and be accepted like the original OpenPOWER legacy names were. This will clearly show the names that appear on other systems and will help reviewing things like power control applications. Andrei does this sound reasonable?
