On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 10:53:30AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:35 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > niedz., 23 wrz 2018 o 13:17 Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> napisał(a): > > > > > > Some users want to introduce device tree support to the mockup driver. > > > Let's make it easier by switching to using generic device properties. > > > The driver stays compatible with previous use cases and after this > > > conversion there'll be no need to change the way probing of mockup > > > GPIO chips works. > > > > > > Tested with libgpiod test suite. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> > (...) > > Linus, I just noticed that we either need to drop the check for > > -ENOENT or add an else that returns on any other error. I'll need to > > send a v2 > > OK business as usual. > > > but I'll let you first tell me if you like the general idea. > > I don't know, I'm a bit ignorant about the idea, scope and > ambition with device properties. > > In my book this relates to the fwnode concept, but maybe > I'm wrong? I think you are right. > Mika, please fill us in here. The device properties in gpiolib > came in the patch > "gpio: Rework of_gpiochip_set_names() to use device property accessors" I'm not sure what to answer to be honest :) The idea behind that patch was that we would be able to use the same properties (DT properties, ACPI _DSD properties, or possibly built-in properties) to set names for GPIOs.