Re: [Patch v5 2/2] gpio: Document GPIO hogging mechanism

[Benoit Parrot <bparrot@ti.com>]

Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com> wrote on Tue [2015-Jan-13 06:43:33 +0900]:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Benoit Parrot <bparrot@ti.com> wrote:
> > Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote on Mon [2015-Jan-12 11:20:14 +0100]:
> >> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 9:07 PM, Benoit Parrot <bparrot@ti.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Add GPIO hogging documentation to gpio.txt
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Benoit Parrot <bparrot@ti.com>
> >> > Reviewed-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
> >>
> >> This is starting to look good ...
> >>
> >> > +               line_b {
> >> > +                       gpio-hog;
> >> > +                       gpios = <6 0>;
> >> > +                       state = "output-low";
> >>
> >> I don't like the state string.
> >>
> >> Instead have boolean properties for all states.
> >>
> >> line_b {
> >>     gpio-hog;
> >>     gpios = <6 0>;
> >>     output-low;
> >>     line-name = "foo-bar-gpio";
> >> }
> >>
> >> Then use of_property_read_bool() in the code to check which
> >> state is to be selected intially. You can check that no mutually
> >> exclusive state are selected, I don't like that an arbitrary string
> >> select the state like that, if we do it that way an enumerator would
> >> be better, I prefer bools.
> >
> > I am sorry but that is how it was originally in the first patch.
> > Alexandre's review comment suggested this method in [1] and [2] (below).
> >
> > Alexandre, any comments?
> >
> > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-gpio&m=141456662426151&w=2
> >
> > [2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-gpio&m=141715982424744&w=2
> 
> When Linus and I are in conflict, follow Linus. Arnd's suggestion of
> having enums defined in (IIUC) include/dt-bindings/gpio and using them
> sounds good to me too and might make everyone happy (no possibility of
> conflicting definitions + no strings). Linus, could you comment on it?

Understood.
Now given Linus prefers the bools that is the direction I am going to follow.