On 06/03/2014 09:22 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
The DT bindings for the pca954x document that the reset GPIO is
specified through the "reset-gpios" property. However, the driver
erroneously uses a property name of "reset-gpio".
The GPIO DT bindings documentation mentions that
"GPIO properties should be named "[<name>-]gpios". The exact meaning of
each gpios property must be documented in the device tree binding for
each device."
The correct reset GPIO property name is thus "reset-gpios". Fix the
driver accordingly.
The plural form should be preferred indeed.
Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
---
drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca954x.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
While commit dd34c37aa3e81715a1ed8da61fa438072428e188
Author: Thierry Reding <[email protected]>
Date: Wed Apr 23 17:28:09 2014 +0200
gpio: of: Allow -gpio suffix for property names
Many bindings use the -gpio suffix in property names. Support this in
addition to the -gpios suffix when requesting GPIOs using the new
descriptor-based API.
adds support for the singular form of the property, the GPIO DT bindings
document the plural form only. I've thus decided to fix the driver instead of
the bindings, even though it could be argued that the singular form makes more
sense in this case. I've CC'ed the people involved with the above commit for
comments on that, and have no issue fixing the bindings instead of the driver
if the singular form is preferred.
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca954x.c
b/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca954x.c
index 550bd36..73491ca 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca954x.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca954x.c
@@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ static int pca954x_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
int gpio;
/* Get the mux out of reset if a reset GPIO is specified. */
- gpio = of_get_named_gpio_flags(np, "reset-gpio", 0, &flags);
+ gpio = of_get_named_gpio_flags(np, "reset-gpios", 0, &flags);
Won't this break DT compatibility for potential users of this driver? (I
cannot find any in mainline though)
Considering that this GPIO is only acquired and set once and for all
during probe (a very simple use-case), how about switching this to the
gpiod interface instead? That way, you can take advantage of Thierry's
patch and the plural form will work while also maintaining the singular
form for backward compatibility.
Alex.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
