On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am Freitag, den 08.08.2014, 15:14 +0200 schrieb Linus Walleij: >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Markus Pargmann <mpa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > The pca953x has a negated reset input. This patch adds a DT binding for >> > the reset gpio and resets the chip when it is probed. This will reset >> > the device and leave the gpio in the correct state so reset is not >> > triggered. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Markus Pargmann <mpa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Why on earth should this be in the GPIO driver? >> >> The driver should be in drivers/reset/reset-gpio.c and you >> should provide a separate driver for it. > > I still think we should keep using the reset-gpios binding for simple > cases like this; I see no reason to add a separate device to the device > tree for a single GPIO. In any case you have to propose something generic that happens in drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c at the end of the gpiochip_add() function, because this will likely appear in many other systems. The binding should also be generic in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt not for just this driver. >> As it happens, Houcheng Lin has already proposed such a >> driver: >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=140309916607115&w=2 > > That is a different issue, as there the device does not appear on the > bus until the reset is released. You're just looking at the patch description. Look at what the driver does. I wrote this reply to the patch: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=140480593524472&w=2 With a delay of zero, the reset will be released immediately, by the use of a helper OF node and this driver from the reset subsystem. It's nice, generic code that solves a generic problem of deasserting GPIO lines for some reset. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html