On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> This patch provides of_get_gpiod_flags_by_name(), which looks up GPIO >> phandles by name only, through gpios/gpio-names, and not by index. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx> > > Like Alexandre I have no strong opinion on this alternative scheme. Yeah this new lookup scheme probably does no harm, but I think it should be a little bit more motivated as it is, after all, introducing more potential confusion for DT users. It does not look like this new lookup scheme is necessary to Chen-Yu's patchset and that he could as well have used the current one. Right now there is only one way to define GPIOs - if we introduce a second one, then which one should new DT users choose? Which one looks better? I can already endless fights taking place over this. Does this new lookup help with some of the existing problems we have like ACPI/DT lookup compatibility? I just need to be given one practical reason to give my ack. Alex. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
