From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: cbouatmailru@gmail.com (Anton Vorontsov)
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:43:40 -0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: Add simple poweroff-gpio driver
In-Reply-To: <20121112181947.GS24583@lunn.ch>
References: <1352650891-18356-1-git-send-email-andrew@lunn.ch>
 <1352650891-18356-2-git-send-email-andrew@lunn.ch>
 <50A020C5.4070506@wwwdotorg.org> <20121112082546.GU22029@lunn.ch>
 <50A1212C.2080601@wwwdotorg.org> <20121112181947.GS24583@lunn.ch>
Message-ID: <20121112184340.GA15643@lizard>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 07:19:47PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
[..]
> > >>> Given appropriate devicetree bindings, this driver registers a
> > >>> pm_power_off function to set a GPIO line high/low to power down
> > >>> your board.
> > 
> > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-poweroff.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-poweroff.txt
> > >>
> > >>> +Required properties:
> > >>> +- compatible : should be "gpio-poweroff".
> > >>> +- gpios : The GPIO to set high/low, see "gpios property" in
> > >>> +  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt. If the pin should be
> > >>> +  low to power down the board set it to "Active Low", otherwise set
> > >>> +  gpio to "Active High".
> > >>
> > >> Unfortunately, not all GPIO bindings support active high/low flags in
> > >> the GPIO specifier. As such, the flags there are basically useless.
> > >> Other bindings (e.g. IIRC the fixed-regulator binding) have added a
> > >> separate active-high property to indicate the GPIO polarity. This
> > >> binding should probably follow suite.

Should the gpio driver fix its bindings then?.. Polarity is a quite
generic concept of a GPIO, and flags are there for a reason. I'd rather
prefer having

	stuff-gpios = <0 0
		       1 0
		       2 1
		       3 0>;

Rather than

	stuff-gpios = <0 1 2 3>;
	stuff-polarity-gpio-map = <0 0 1 0>;

The first scheme existed like for years already. Has it been discussed
that it is no longer preferred?

> > > Humm, so are you saying of_get_named_gpio_flags() is deprecated?
> > 
> > I don't know if it's deprecated, but it's certainly not useful in
> > generic code.
> 
> Hi Linus, Anton
> 
> How do you see this? 
> 
> I'm happy to implement an enable-active-high property, but it seems to
> go against the purpose of of_get_named_gpio_flags(). Is that function
> deprecated?

Never heard of any deprecation, and I disagree that it is "not useful in
generic code". :)

Thanks,
Anton.