On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 11:53:15PM +0000, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Rob Herring <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> + reg = <0x00000 0x1000>;
>> >> +
>> >> + v2m_led_gpios: sys_led@08 {
>> >> + compatible =
>> >> "arm,vexpress-sysreg,sys_led";
>> >> + gpio-controller;
>> >> + #gpio-cells = <2>;
>> >> + };
>> >
>> > These are not GPIOs. These are LED registers really.
>>
>> A register bit that controls an i/o signal sounds like a GPIO to me.
>
> To me too. I agree that definining a gpio-controller for every possible
> gpio pin would soon get unwieldy, but hey, the choice made for vexpress
> leds makes perfect sense to me, after all they are gpio signals
> connected to leds, and there is a driver for that in the kernel:
>
> drivers/leds/leds-gpio.c
>
> we could move this stuff to syscon-leds, but honestly I think is one of those
> things we could argue forever about that.
OK it's just so that the GPIO maintainer disagrees with the way
gpio-controller is being used here, and I consequently NACK it
so for the record add my:
Nacked-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
To this patch if/when merging it through ARM SoC.
If the DT people think it is a good way to describe the hardware
and override this then I will live with it I guess...
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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
