From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org,
Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@googlemail.com>,
Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>,
tbm@cyrius.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: Kirkwood: Add DT description of QNAP 419
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:36:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201401151736.46280.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140111210443.GT9681@lunn.ch>
On Saturday 11 January 2014, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> The id of -1 causes platform_device_add() to set the device name to
> plain "gpio-keys".
>
> When using DT, the device name is created by the function
> of_device_make_bus_id(). It has the following comment:
>
> * This routine will first try using either the dcr-reg or the reg property
> * value to derive a unique name. As a last resort it will use the node
> * name followed by a unique number.
>
> Since the gpio_keys node does not have a reg properties, it gets a
> unique number appended to it. We end up with the device name
> "gpio_keys.3"
>
> So as it stands, it does not appear i can make the DT system use the
> same device name as a board system.
>
> But i'm also a little bit concerned by the "unique number" and this
> ending up in /dev/input/by-path/platform-gpio_keys.3-event. Is this
> path supposed to be stable? This unique number is not stable. An
> unwitting change to the DT could cause its value to change. Do we need
> to make it stable?
>
One possibility would be to create an artificial bus in DT for all
gpio-keys devices, use #address-cells=<1> and #size-cells=<0>
for it, and give each device a unique reg property. Not sure if that
would be considered an elegant solution though.
Arnd
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: Kirkwood: Add DT description of QNAP 419
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:36:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201401151736.46280.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140111210443.GT9681@lunn.ch>
On Saturday 11 January 2014, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> The id of -1 causes platform_device_add() to set the device name to
> plain "gpio-keys".
>
> When using DT, the device name is created by the function
> of_device_make_bus_id(). It has the following comment:
>
> * This routine will first try using either the dcr-reg or the reg property
> * value to derive a unique name. As a last resort it will use the node
> * name followed by a unique number.
>
> Since the gpio_keys node does not have a reg properties, it gets a
> unique number appended to it. We end up with the device name
> "gpio_keys.3"
>
> So as it stands, it does not appear i can make the DT system use the
> same device name as a board system.
>
> But i'm also a little bit concerned by the "unique number" and this
> ending up in /dev/input/by-path/platform-gpio_keys.3-event. Is this
> path supposed to be stable? This unique number is not stable. An
> unwitting change to the DT could cause its value to change. Do we need
> to make it stable?
>
One possibility would be to create an artificial bus in DT for all
gpio-keys devices, use #address-cells=<1> and #size-cells=<0>
for it, and give each device a unique reg property. Not sure if that
would be considered an elegant solution though.
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-15 16:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-06 22:49 [PATCH] ARM: Kirkwood: Add DT description of QNAP 419 Andrew Lunn
2014-01-08 9:48 ` Ian Campbell
2014-01-08 15:59 ` Andrew Lunn
2014-01-11 21:04 ` Andrew Lunn
2014-01-11 21:04 ` Andrew Lunn
2014-01-15 16:36 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2014-01-15 16:36 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-01-15 17:45 ` Andrew Lunn
2014-01-15 17:45 ` Andrew Lunn
2014-01-15 18:20 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-01-15 18:20 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-01-14 0:39 ` Jason Cooper
2014-01-14 8:15 ` Ian Campbell
2014-01-14 0:48 ` Jason Cooper
2014-01-14 9:15 ` Andrew Lunn
2014-01-14 13:00 ` Jason Cooper
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201401151736.46280.arnd@arndb.de \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gregory.clement@free-electrons.com \
--cc=ijc@hellion.org.uk \
--cc=jason@lakedaemon.net \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sebastian.hesselbarth@googlemail.com \
--cc=tbm@cyrius.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.