From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: anton.vorontsov@linaro.org (Anton Vorontsov) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 02:59:55 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: Add simple poweroff-gpio driver In-Reply-To: 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> <20121112184340.GA15643@lizard> <50A146E7.2040608@wwwdotorg.org> Message-ID: <20121115105954.GA17119@lizard> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:35:36AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > > On 11/12/2012 11:43 AM, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > >> 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 > > > > There is no "GPIO driver" to fix; each GPIO driver has its own bindings, > > and unfortunately, some of the GPIO binding authors chose not to include > > any flags cell in the GPIO specifier (e.g. Samsung ARM SoCs IIRC, but > > there are probably more). > > So can I read this something like we have been too liberal with the > GPIO DT bindings and they are now a bit messy and need to be shaped > up? I don't know how to achieve that :-( I guess there's really no reason to panic. :) 'git grep gpio-cells Documentation/' shows just mrvl-gpio.txt and twl6040.txt having the wrong gpio-cells (i.e. 1). But even these can use one cells for both flags and pin number (unless you really have 4294967295 GPIOs per controller). FWIW, current Samsung SOCs use 3 and even 4 cells for a GPIO specifier, which is absolutely fine. Plus, the Samsung bindings do specify the inversion flag. So, unless we have a lot of other [undocumented] bindings, I don't see a big mess. And everything I currently see is fixable. Thanks, Anton.