From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thierry Reding Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] ARM: tegra: add gpiod_lookup table for paz00 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:03:40 +0100 Message-ID: <20131129110339.GK22771@ulmo.nvidia.com> References: <1385460350-17543-1-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <1752117.77jQLaML2y@fb07-iapwap2> <20131128110636.GA22818@ulmo.nvidia.com> <1441981.OvF23sGttd@fb07-iapwap2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Qo8f1a4rgWw9S/zY" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1441981.OvF23sGttd@fb07-iapwap2> Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Marc Dietrich Cc: Alexandre Courbot , Rhyland Klein , Mika Westerberg , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linus Walleij , Chris Ball , Johannes Berg , Adrian Hunter , Alex Courbot , Mathias Nyman , Rob Landley , Heikki Krogerus , Stephen Warren , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Devicetree List List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --Qo8f1a4rgWw9S/zY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 01:54:10PM +0100, Marc Dietrich wrote: [...] > Yes, rfkill is just an interface for userspace to able to control the gpi= o.=20 > E.g. backlight of medcom-wide seems to be related to the pwm controller, = but=20 > is not a subnode of it. Instead it is a device of its own without parent.= =20 > Hence, we may include rfkill in a similar, "free-standing" node. But this= =20 > approch was rejected in the past. Maybe this changed now. Indeed. I think we really do need ways to represent this kind of device. If we can't then how are we supposed to get rid of board files? > Thinking a bit more about it, rfkill is neither a hw block nor a function= of=20 > the wifi driver, so I guess it cannot be added to the usb controller (or = a usb=20 > device). I guess it depends a bit. Some rfkill-type devices may control more than just WiFi (bluetooth, NFC, ...). If it really only controls WiFi, I think it would still be reasonable to represent it as a child of the WiFi device. It is, after all, a mechanism to control the WiFi hardware. Alternatively I suppose we wouldn't really need to have an explicit node. The WiFi driver could simply instantiate an rfkill device based on its own properties. Thierry --Qo8f1a4rgWw9S/zY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSmHSLAAoJEN0jrNd/PrOhLYkP/iKC6LI2LuPV2l8HKpb66GZX 6Z1jL3BdUR+cDxHLIzUEEbdEtpYxj3bkL8pyYxBKI8UCs2xnIowjjU/YAf+I/pt2 ZgdrG5z9gDM1TRTVSfIgYAa57KZG31TIVdZSZbrJ/r38UbohkdIrxAYkBbqmAkIZ W4FDvgkaUm6+SMfZVlIiRDmMx5lM9VqOTfJMs34cqRUZm9QN3yk77mIFqDc1F2Yb u7ac634AmvxmUabZsZ91FyOQB+ne5NLwV1hjIwHUr0qwBd/ZIqy9fLgOYMNtCUN6 p0uVddGuVJf8ViBZgY5M796rOaxHTRJRZFACvS5kU+wvW1dglB6baCfa+4dPclkX N1/qEJM7LA9RHTkMOF07vYVSiC0BBYWhzRl1jXhlmDv0pmzxMv+we6iPBbGUNv1M kUFbrVK6ubsiaaA3nfQB//N/2DW8QO2cj3ZzRZ+B0hQtHdQZY6RmiioZX/hy5zF5 apRjLFnfw+jUglD2qrzgAqdRadk/xYFRQW/J/ZVZ89nbau5FkrRtEJZ//ELOlhDX XfRBqMBXy0JEFHFTlKmw+SfNnK4EuAYwnBIlkUG1jjNAbTIj74KJz59fq21QvA14 JVD1Bnp43cF+zqxfw9c0dkyPZYMT7WCKEfl+butSo16LUz3wlRtTgNVrO1Ey4cGG RbxiybMrNI3YFCNjli2n =cEez -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Qo8f1a4rgWw9S/zY--