On 11/15/2012 03:59 AM, Anton Vorontsov 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).
If there are too-few cells, the binding and driver can always be expanded to support more cells in a backwards-compatible way. > 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. Oh, I always thought that the Samsung bindings were one of the major issues here, but you're right - they do have the inversion flag already. So, perhaps there really isn't an issue, and we should revisit the GPIO-based regulator bindings and drivers, and allow them to (additionally) rely on the GPIO flags in the standard way. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
