> + ret = of_property_read_u32(chip_np, "#gpio-cells", &gpio_cells); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + if (WARN_ON(gpio_cells != 2)) > + return -ENOTSUPP; > + > + ret = of_property_read_u32_index(np, "gpios", idx * gpio_cells, > + &gpio_num); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + ret = of_property_read_u32_index(np, "gpios", idx * gpio_cells + 1, > + &gpio_flags); > + if (ret) > + return ret; Doesn't this hardcode interpretation of device tree words in gpio specification - while this is intended to be gpio-provider specific and that's why #gpio-cells exist? > +static int of_gpiochip_scan_gpios(struct gpio_chip *chip) Not best choice of name for routine that scans hogs? (although I understand that it comes from linux counterpart) > - return 0; > + return of_gpiochip_scan_gpios(chip); Should we fail gpiochip registration on failure to claim hogs? I don't know. Nikita _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
