On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Anton Vorontsov <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:35:36AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Stephen Warren <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > On 11/12/2012 11:43 AM, Anton Vorontsov wrote: >> >> >> Should the gpio driver fix its bindings then?.. Polarity is a quite >> >> generic concept of a GPIO, and flags are there for a reason. I'd rather >> >> prefer having >> > >> > There is no "GPIO driver" to fix; each GPIO driver has its own bindings, >> > and unfortunately, some of the GPIO binding authors chose not to include >> > any flags cell in the GPIO specifier (e.g. Samsung ARM SoCs IIRC, but >> > there are probably more). >> >> So can I read this something like we have been too liberal with the >> GPIO DT bindings and they are now a bit messy and need to be shaped >> up? I don't know how to achieve that :-( > > I guess there's really no reason to panic. :) > > 'git grep gpio-cells Documentation/' shows just mrvl-gpio.txt and > twl6040.txt having the wrong gpio-cells (i.e. 1). > > But even these can use one cells for both flags and pin number (unless you > really have 4294967295 GPIOs per controller). > > FWIW, current Samsung SOCs use 3 and even 4 cells for a GPIO specifier, > which is absolutely fine. Plus, the Samsung bindings do specify the > inversion flag. So, unless we have a lot of other [undocumented] bindings, > I don't see a big mess. And everything I currently see is fixable.
I agree it's not that big a mess... I was more thinking about how to convince the people who can test this to fix it up. Yours, Linus Walleij _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
