Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] dt-bindings: brcmstb-gpio: document properties for wakeup

[Gregory Fong <gregory.0xf0@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Brian Norris
<computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:57:50PM -0700, Gregory Fong wrote:
>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Brian Norris
>> <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 07:14:07PM -0700, Gregory Fong wrote:
>> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/brcm,brcmstb-gpio.txt
>> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/brcm,brcmstb-gpio.txt
>> >> @@ -33,6 +33,12 @@ Optional properties:
> ...
>> >>  - #interrupt-cells:
>> >>      Should be <2>.  The first cell is the GPIO number, the second should specify
>> >>      flags.  The following subset of flags is supported:
>> >> @@ -48,7 +54,10 @@ Optional properties:
>> >>      Marks the device node as an interrupt controller
>> >>
>> >>  - interrupt-names:
>> >> -    The name of the IRQ resource used by this controller
>> >> +    The names of the IRQ resources used by this controller
>> >
>> > If you're specifying names, you should list them here.
>>
>> I was wondering about that.  Some bindings have them listed, some
>> don't.  In this case I know what names currently exist but there could
>> certainly be different ones in the future.  How does that work?  Or am
>> I misunderstanding what this field is used for?  Where are the
>> documented rules for this?
>
> The only documentation I see is:
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/resource-names.txt
>
> That documents the basics of the *-names properties, not their expected
> usage.
>
> In practice, they're only useful if you have enough optional resources
> that fixed indexing isn't sufficient, and you need to use
> platform_get_resource_byname().
>
> So IMO, their purposes seems to be one of these:
> (1) functional (e.g., for get_resource_byname(), when you have more than
>     one optional resource)
> (2) self-documentation (which might run counter to #1, as you begin
>     generating too many unique names)
> (3) no purpose
>
> So IMO, if you ever want (1), they shouldn't have instance-specific
> naming, but should use something generic to the device class. Otherwise,
> they are just self-documentation, and aren't functionally useful. So
> IMO, these sorts of names:
>
>         interrupt-names = "upg_gio_aon", "upg_gio_aon_wakeup";
>
> work better as functional descriptions:
>
>         interrupt-names = "gio", "wakeup";
>
> But in the end, I wouldn't foresee you needing to do (1), so you're left
> with (2) or (3), at which point I'm not sure if you should even mention
> the property.

I'm fine with leaving out the interrupt-names property, since we're
not using it here anyway.  Unless there are serious objections, I'll
plan on remove it from the bindings doc next round.

Thanks,
Gregory
--
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