On 03/04/2014 07:37 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 03/04/2014 06:43 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > >>> If I understand the situation correctly it's like ACPI does not have named >>> GPIOs so keeping specifying this in DT GPIO bindings is counter-productive >>> to the work of abstracting the access to GPIO handlers so that drivers >>> need not know whether ACPI or DT is used for describing the hardware. >> >> For devices that already have both ACPI and DT bindings, we can't >> pretend they can be the same; they are already potentially different. We >> simply need to parse DT and ACPI differently, since that's the sway >> their bindings are defined. >> >> For any devices that don't have both ACPI and DT bindings, I agree we >> should certainly strive to make any new bindings aligned so we don't >> have to deal with this for them. >> >> However, we can't change the past. > > Yeah, right, so for this very driver there are no bindings defined (yet) > and the only device tree I can find referencing it is the Tegra20-paz00 > and it just use gpios = <>; > > So in this case I think this patch is the right way forward, but I admit > I'm really uncertain in the general case. If there are no bindings defined at all yet, then we can define both DT and ACPI bindings to use name-based GPIOs. Index-based lookups aren't a good way forward. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
