On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:32:39 -0800
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>> This patch adds a new driver for the beeper controlled via GPIO pin.
> > >>>> The driver does not depend on the architecture and is positioned as
> > >>>> a replacement for the specific drivers that are used for this function.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@xxxxxxx>
> > >> ...
> > >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-beeper.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-beeper.txt
> > >> ...
> > >>>> +Example:
> > >>>> +
> > >>>> +beeper: input@0 {
> > >>>> + compatible = "gpio-beeper";
> > >>>> + reg = <0>;
> > >>>> + gpios = <&gpio3 23 0>;
> > >>>> +};
> > >>>
> > >>> What are the reg / unit-address for?
> > >>
> > >> Just an example from "simple-bus" container.
> > >
> > > If they have no meaning, they should go. They're unnecessary and make
> > > things more confusing.
> > >
> > > I'd expect the example to be:
> > >
> > > beeper: beeper {
> > > compatible = "gpio-beeper";
> > > gpios - <&gpio3 23 0>;
> > > };
> > >
> > > And if we have multiple beepers, something like:
> > >
> > > beeper0: beeper0 { ... };
> > > beeper1: beeper1 { ... };
> >
> > DT node names aren't meant to encode identity though. What we've done in
> > the past for nodes without a reg where multiple instances were desired
> > is to put them into simple-bus and add a reg, so:
> >
> > beeper0: beeper@0 { reg = <0>; ... };
> > beeper1: beeper@1 { reg = <1>; ... };
> >
> > Of course, if there's only one of them, then it could just be "beeper"
> > with no reg. The binding and example should probably reflect that simple
> > case.
>
> So do we have an agreement on bindings? Otherwise the driver looks good
> to me.
I'll send v2 of this patch.
Thanks.
--
Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@xxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
