Re: [PATCH 0/2] GPIO support for Socionext Synquacer

[Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Ard Biesheuvel
<ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I currently have this in my DTS:
>
> &gpio {
>     dsw3_1 {
>         gpios = <0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>         gpio-hog;
>         input;
>     };
>
>     dsw3_2 {
>         gpios = <1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>         gpio-hog;
>         input;
>     };
>
>     dsw3_3 {
>         gpios = <2 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>         gpio-hog;
>         input;
>     };
>
>     dsw3_4 {
>         gpios = <3 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>         gpio-hog;
>         input;
>     };
>
>     dsw3_5 {
>         gpios = <4 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>         gpio-hog;
>         input;
>     };
>
>     dsw3_6 {
>         gpios = <5 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>         gpio-hog;
>         input;
>     };
>
>     dsw3_7 {
>         gpios = <6 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>         gpio-hog;
>         input;
>     };
>
>     dsw3_8 {
>         gpios = <7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>         gpio-hog;
>         input;
>     };
>
> for the 8 DIP switches that are connected to GPIO lines.

I have no idea how to make proper use of DIP switches really.
We *could* route them as inputs using GPIO keys, but it would
maybe give people the idea that it is a good idea to start
prying them at runtime.

If they don't have a usecase I would just leave them as this.

I guess/hope they will not be used by userspace either.

> So I can add the names for all the lines that have a purpose, but is
> that orthogonal to hogging?

Naming is orthogonal to hogging and should be a functional name
for the line, preferably header name, else rail name or something
else reasonable.

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