On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:32:39 -0800 Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>> This patch adds a new driver for the beeper controlled via GPIO pin. > > >>>> The driver does not depend on the architecture and is positioned as > > >>>> a replacement for the specific drivers that are used for this function. > > >>>> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Shiyan <[email protected]> > > >> ... > > >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-beeper.txt > > >>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-beeper.txt > > >> ... > > >>>> +Example: > > >>>> + > > >>>> +beeper: input@0 { > > >>>> + compatible = "gpio-beeper"; > > >>>> + reg = <0>; > > >>>> + gpios = <&gpio3 23 0>; > > >>>> +}; > > >>> > > >>> What are the reg / unit-address for? > > >> > > >> Just an example from "simple-bus" container. > > > > > > If they have no meaning, they should go. They're unnecessary and make > > > things more confusing. > > > > > > I'd expect the example to be: > > > > > > beeper: beeper { > > > compatible = "gpio-beeper"; > > > gpios - <&gpio3 23 0>; > > > }; > > > > > > And if we have multiple beepers, something like: > > > > > > beeper0: beeper0 { ... }; > > > beeper1: beeper1 { ... }; > > > > DT node names aren't meant to encode identity though. What we've done in > > the past for nodes without a reg where multiple instances were desired > > is to put them into simple-bus and add a reg, so: > > > > beeper0: beeper@0 { reg = <0>; ... }; > > beeper1: beeper@1 { reg = <1>; ... }; > > > > Of course, if there's only one of them, then it could just be "beeper" > > with no reg. The binding and example should probably reflect that simple > > case. > > So do we have an agreement on bindings? Otherwise the driver looks good > to me. I'll send v2 of this patch. Thanks. -- Alexander Shiyan <[email protected]> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
