From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753238Ab1IUQhn (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:37:43 -0400 Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:38373 "EHLO opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753115Ab1IUQhm (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:37:42 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:37:39 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Grant Likely Cc: Daniel Drake , sameo@linux.intel.com, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dilinger@queued.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] gpio-vx855: Add device tree binding Message-ID: <20110921163738.GK4374@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <20110921120214.DFDC79D401E@zog.reactivated.net> <20110921125051.GB25620@sirena.org.uk> <20110921162906.GY7781@ponder.secretlab.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110921162906.GY7781@ponder.secretlab.ca> X-Cookie: Your present plans will be successful. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:29:06AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 01:50:52PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > Shouldn't we just have a property for the polarity? > A flags cell in gpio specifiers (and irq specifiers for that matter) is > well established practice. Oh, well :( We need to establish what the general style is for stuff like this, it feels like there's frequent conflict between existing practice and what people want to do with new bindings (in addition to the cases like the arrays where there's some issues in general). From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] gpio-vx855: Add device tree binding Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:37:39 +0100 Message-ID: <20110921163738.GK4374@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <20110921120214.DFDC79D401E@zog.reactivated.net> <20110921125051.GB25620@sirena.org.uk> <20110921162906.GY7781@ponder.secretlab.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110921162906.GY7781-e0URQFbLeQY2iJbIjFUEsiwD8/FfD2ys@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: Grant Likely Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, dilinger-pFFUokh25LWsTnJN9+BGXg@public.gmane.org, Daniel Drake , sameo-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:29:06AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 01:50:52PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > Shouldn't we just have a property for the polarity? > A flags cell in gpio specifiers (and irq specifiers for that matter) is > well established practice. Oh, well :( We need to establish what the general style is for stuff like this, it feels like there's frequent conflict between existing practice and what people want to do with new bindings (in addition to the cases like the arrays where there's some issues in general).