On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 10:19:47AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Benoit Parrot <bparrot@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > + line_b: line_b {
> > + line_b {
> > + gpios = <6 0>;
> > + output-low;
> > + line-name = "foo-bar-gpio";
> > + };
> > + };
> >
> (...)
> >
> > I wonder if such usage of child nodes could not interfere with GPIO
> > drivers (existing or to be) that need to use child nodes for other
> > purposes. Right now there is no way to distinguish a hog node from a
> > node that serves another purpose, and that might become a problem in
> > the future.
>
> Yes, so I have suggested a hog-something; keyword in there.
>
> As long as the children don't have any compatible-strings we can
> decide pretty much how they should be handled internally.
>
> Are there custom drivers with child nodes inside the main chip
> today?
o/
Our pinctrl driver is also our GPIO driver, so they both share the
same node.
Our pinctrl definitions are there.
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
