Linus Walleij wrote, > I think what Mark is saying is that you should not define a new node > for exports, but instead use the node for the gpiochip and extend > those existing gpiochip bindings, if you want to do this. > What might this look like? Should each exported pin have a node under the gpio-controller? If we want to allow for pins to be exported to userspace, a name alone is not sufficient; we also need to provide the allowed directions. I think this precludes the use of a plain /aliases node.
Perhaps something like this (please excuse my ignorance of devicetree
norms)?
gpio1: gpio-controller@1400 {
#gpio-cells = <2>;
compatible = "fsl,qe-pario-bank-a", "fsl,qe-pario-bank";
reg = <0x1400 0x18>;
gpio-controller;
pin_a: gpio {
gpio-name = "pin-a";
gpio = <&gpio1 2 0>;
output;
init-high;
};
};
One issue with this is the redundancy of specifying both the
gpio-controller in the `gpio` attribute and by virtue of it being a
child of the controller. Other suggestions?
Cheers,
- Ben
pgpONCBRnJrzK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
