On 2.5.2018 15:56, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> If you don't want this patch I understand that and it will become just >> another soc vendor patch out of mainline. > > I don't really know what to do, so that is why I'm discussing. me too. It is also interesting that I have met with the case with zynq/zynqmp gpio driver and not gpio-xilinx.c which can have a lot of instances. > > It's one of those gray areas. > > From one point of view there is the purist stance that we should > only support what the mainline tree does, and be strict and > consistent so we don't accumulate to many nasty hacks. Also this expect that the first patch does everything right which is not truth all the time. > > On the other hand, it is completely possible that all users of this > particular driver actually must have this patch, and then I just > push them to use a deviant vendor tree for no good reason. > > Would it be possible that I apply the patch, and somehow also > establish some understanding with all users of the Xilinx > platform that whatever legacy applications are out there > must start to migrate towards using the character device so > this reliance on the numberspace doesn't stick around forever? When someone contacts me for asking guidance for gpio I am telling them not to use legacy sysfs interface and use libgpiod. Last one was a week ago in connection to Ultra96 and libmraa. But even chardev is not supported there now. https://github.com/intel-iot-devkit/mraa/issues/713 > > For example can we make a patch to some systems like > arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-*.dts > adding proper GPIO line names to these device trees, such > as was made in e.g. commit f6b1674d570aa1 > "arm64: dts: qcom: sbc: Name GPIO lines" If you take a look at arch/arm64/boot/dts/xilinx/zynqmp-zcu100-revC.dts which is Ultra96 board gpio-line-names are filled there for the whole PS part. Definitely take a look and let know if you find out any issue there. zynq/zynqmp gpio controller contains PS pins (hard part) and PL pins coming to logic. I can't describe PL gpio pins because it can be whatever even I have done that for one fixed hw design. Interesting part on that sha1 you shared is how "NC" pin is described. gpio pin 35 I have on zcu100 as "" but it should be maybe TP_PAD which is really just a pad on real board. And the rest of "" gpio names are connected to PL. I am happy to take a look at existing platforms and use gpio-line-names there. For example arch/arm64/boot/dts/xilinx/zynqmp-zcu102-revA.dts I use in tca6416_u97 and u61 comments instead of this property. > > After all that is what I strive for as maintainer, as the IETF > motto says: > "rough consensus and running code" Thanks, Michal -- 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