From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: pinctrl: Add a ngpios-ranges property Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:54:21 +0200 Message-ID: <1515588861.7000.842.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <20180110015848.11480-1-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <20180110015848.11480-3-sboyd@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180110015848.11480-3-sboyd@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Boyd , Linus Walleij Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Timur Tabi , Bjorn Andersson , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 17:58 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Some qcom platforms make some GPIOs or pins unavailable for use > by non-secure operating systems, and thus reading or writing the > registers for those pins will cause access control issues. > Introduce a DT property to describe the set of GPIOs that are > available for use so that higher level OSes are able to know what > pins to avoid reading/writing. > +- ngpios-ranges: > + Usage: optional > + Value type: > + Definition: Tuples of GPIO ranges (base, size) indicating > + GPIOs available for use. Can be name more particular? We have on one hand gpio-range-list for mapping, on the other this one might become generic. So, there are few options (at least?) to consider: 1) re-use gpio-ranges 2) add a valid property to gpio-ranges 3) rename ngpios-ranges to something like gpio-valid-ranges (I don't like it so much either, but for me it looks more descriptive than ngpios-ranges) -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy