From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robh@kernel.org (Rob Herring) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 17:03:09 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] gpio: document how to order GPIO controllers In-Reply-To: References: <1467355333-8813-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <20160705140546.GA10601@rob-hp-laptop> <20160705180447.GP16643@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <20160717220309.GA22711@rob-hp-laptop> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 11:34:37AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Uwe Kleine-K?nig > wrote: > > [Rob]: > > >> Like SPI and I2C, I'm against further abuse of aliases for this purpose > >> [1]. > > So what about the usecase for serial ports, where we use this > to make sure the console come out where we want it? Is that > also considered abuse or legitimate use? Note: I'm not trying to be > snarky, I'm trying to understand what is the right and wrong use > of alias. I'm confused about it right now :( I guess it comes down to how ingrained the usage of any numbering is. For consoles, it was pretty important to maintain numbering and no alternative. But now with stdout-path that is less important. Perhaps if you have inittab with tty devices, then it is still needed. So I guess I would summarize the requirement to be only cases needing to maintain numbering for existing userspace. The only users really caring about this have been on N900. Rob