On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 09:17:24 AM Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 06:52:02PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 05:45:57PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 23 September 2014 17:25:50 Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Mika Westerberg
> > > > <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Some drivers need to deal with only firmware representation of its
> > > > > GPIOs. An example would be a GPIO button array driver where each button
> > > > > is described as a separate firmware node in device tree. Typically these
> > > > > child nodes do not have physical representation in the Linux device
> > > > > model.
> > > > >
> > > > > In order to help device drivers to handle such firmware child nodes we
> > > > > add dev[m]_node_get_named_gpiod() that takes a firmware node pointer as
> > > > > parameter, finds the GPIO using whatever is the underlying firmware
> > > > > method, and requests the GPIO properly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > I have a hard time figuring out if this is what we want for common
> > > > accessors between DT and ACPI.
> > > >
> > > > Can I get some input from Grant, Arnd, Mark, Darren...?
> > >
> > > I just took a brief look at this. My first impression is that the
> > > fw_dev_node structure is weird when all callers just do (in patch 2)
> > >
> > > + struct fw_dev_node fdn = {
> > > + .of_node = dev->of_node,
> > > + .acpi_node = ACPI_COMPANION(dev),
> > > + };
> > >
> > > I'd much rather see an interface that passes the 'struct device'
> > > pointer down to dev_get_named_gpiod() and all other exported
> > > functions, and then internally does the conversion at the point
> > > where the access is done.
> >
> > Problem is that if you don't have the dev pointer in the first place.
> > Please look how leds-gpio.c or gpio_keys_polled.c are using this.
> >
> > Of course you have the first level device but when you need to iterate
> > "leds" or "buttons" below where there is no Linux device available we
> > need something like this.
>
> Maybe we should be passing the parent/owner device to the iterator
> functions?
Yes, we can do that. That's one alternative for what we have in the current
set.
Rafael
--
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
