Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:44:49 +0100 | From | Olliver Schinagl <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] gpio: add parameter to allow the use named gpios |
| |
Hey Alexandre,
On 01/19/2015 05:04 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Olliver Schinagl > <oliver+list@schinagl.nl> wrote: >> From: Olliver Schinagl <oliver@schinagl.nl> >> >> The gpio binding document says that new code should always use named >> gpios. Patch 40b73183 added support to parse a list of gpios from child >> nodes, but does not make it possible to use named gpios. This patch adds >> the con_id property and implements it is done in gpiolib.c, where the >> old-style of using unnamed gpios still works. > This is absolutely correct - thanks for spotting this. > > <snip> > ... since it looks like this part has been mostly copy/pasted from > of_find_gpio(), can you add another patch that fixes it there as well? Yeah, since it has the same functionality, i copy pasted it. Wasn't sure if it was worth to macro it or anything. I've sent a v2 with that patch added to the mix :) > > Also in the case of ACPI this will prove to be an incomplete lookup > since acpi_find_gpio() has an additional fallback if the named lookup > fails. I'm not very familiar (or at all) how ACPI falls into all of this, I'm just starting to get a hang of the DT, but since this is how the dts is being parsed, where is the relation here? Or did I misunderstand? > > In that respect, I wonder if it would not be better for > devm_get_gpiod_from_child() to call of_find_gpio() and > acpi_find_gpio() (after making them non-static) followed by > gpiod_request() instead of calling fwnode_get_named_gpiod(). But in > that case it will have to do the OF/ACPI handling by itself. > > I'm not really sure about which way is better. I'd appreciate if you > could give a thought to a possible refactoring that would improve the > situation ; otherwise feel free to ignore what I have written above > and to duplicate the property name building code. I'm afraid I'm a little too inexperienced to follow exactly what you say ;)
Olliver
| |