Re: [Patch v5 2/2] gpio: Document GPIO hogging mechanism

[Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Benoit Parrot <bparrot@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Mon [2015-Jan-12 11:20:14 +0100]:

>>> line_b {
>>>     gpio-hog;
>>>     gpios = <6 0>;
>>>     output-low;
>>>     line-name = "foo-bar-gpio";
>>> }
>>>
>>> Then use of_property_read_bool() in the code to check which
>>> state is to be selected intially. You can check that no mutually
>>> exclusive state are selected, I don't like that an arbitrary string
>>> select the state like that, if we do it that way an enumerator would
>>> be better, I prefer bools.
>>
>> I am sorry but that is how it was originally in the first patch.
>> Alexandre's review comment suggested this method in [1] and [2] (below).
>>
>> Alexandre, any comments?
>>
>> [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-gpio&m=141456662426151&w=2
>>
>> [2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-gpio&m=141715982424744&w=2
>
> When Linus and I are in conflict, follow Linus. Arnd's suggestion of
> having enums defined in (IIUC) include/dt-bindings/gpio and using them
> sounds good to me too and might make everyone happy (no possibility of
> conflicting definitions + no strings). Linus, could you comment on it?

I'm fine with bools or enums, just not strings, sorry for the mess.

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