lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 07/16] gpio: Add support for unified device properties interface
    Date
    On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 09:17:24 AM Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
    > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 06:52:02PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
    > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 05:45:57PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
    > > > On Tuesday 23 September 2014 17:25:50 Linus Walleij wrote:
    > > > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Mika Westerberg
    > > > > <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > > Some drivers need to deal with only firmware representation of its
    > > > > > GPIOs. An example would be a GPIO button array driver where each button
    > > > > > is described as a separate firmware node in device tree. Typically these
    > > > > > child nodes do not have physical representation in the Linux device
    > > > > > model.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > In order to help device drivers to handle such firmware child nodes we
    > > > > > add dev[m]_node_get_named_gpiod() that takes a firmware node pointer as
    > > > > > parameter, finds the GPIO using whatever is the underlying firmware
    > > > > > method, and requests the GPIO properly.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
    > > > >
    > > > > I have a hard time figuring out if this is what we want for common
    > > > > accessors between DT and ACPI.
    > > > >
    > > > > Can I get some input from Grant, Arnd, Mark, Darren...?
    > > >
    > > > I just took a brief look at this. My first impression is that the
    > > > fw_dev_node structure is weird when all callers just do (in patch 2)
    > > >
    > > > + struct fw_dev_node fdn = {
    > > > + .of_node = dev->of_node,
    > > > + .acpi_node = ACPI_COMPANION(dev),
    > > > + };
    > > >
    > > > I'd much rather see an interface that passes the 'struct device'
    > > > pointer down to dev_get_named_gpiod() and all other exported
    > > > functions, and then internally does the conversion at the point
    > > > where the access is done.
    > >
    > > Problem is that if you don't have the dev pointer in the first place.
    > > Please look how leds-gpio.c or gpio_keys_polled.c are using this.
    > >
    > > Of course you have the first level device but when you need to iterate
    > > "leds" or "buttons" below where there is no Linux device available we
    > > need something like this.
    >
    > Maybe we should be passing the parent/owner device to the iterator
    > functions?

    Yes, we can do that. That's one alternative for what we have in the current
    set.

    Rafael



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-09-23 22:41    [W:2.691 / U:1.420 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site