On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 01:43:18PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 04/17/2014 06:02 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > > From: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Properties referencing GPIOs should use the plural suffix -gpios. This > > convention is encoded in the device tree backend of gpiod_get(), which > > we'll eventually want to migrate to. > > Wouldn't it be simpler to fix the GPIO binding documentation and > gpiod_get() code to allow the -gpio suffix in addition to -gpios? It > always struck me as silly that the binding required a plural property > name when only a single entry made sense. > > (For something like "clocks", since the property name applies to any > clock, and there certainly can be many clocks, a plural property name > makes sense. However, since each type of GPIO is "foo-gpios" rather than > an "foo" entry in "gpios", that same argument doesn't apply, and a > singular property name seems much more correct). Yeah, it's somewhat unfortunate that this is done inconsistently across different subsystems. GPIO isn't the only exception here. Regulators use a similar pattern. For consistency it'd be nice if we could get everyone to agree to one scheme, but I suspect that by now we're far beyond that being a viable option. I don't have a strong feeling either way, so if allowing both *-gpios and *-gpio properties is what we want, then I can certainly come up with a patch. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpUov4xtXsDW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
