From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thierry Reding Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: tegra: Deprecate nvidia,hpd-gpio property Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:23:15 +0200 Message-ID: <20140422072314.GB11766@ulmo> References: <1397736181-1593-1-git-send-email-thierry.reding@gmail.com> <1397736181-1593-2-git-send-email-thierry.reding@gmail.com> <535574D6.3010002@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3lcZGd9BuhuYXNfi" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <535574D6.3010002-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Stephen Warren Cc: dri-devel-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org, linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --3lcZGd9BuhuYXNfi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 01:43:18PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 04/17/2014 06:02 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > > From: Thierry Reding > >=20 > > Properties referencing GPIOs should use the plural suffix -gpios. This > > convention is encoded in the device tree backend of gpiod_get(), which > > we'll eventually want to migrate to. >=20 > Wouldn't it be simpler to fix the GPIO binding documentation and > gpiod_get() code to allow the -gpio suffix in addition to -gpios? It > always struck me as silly that the binding required a plural property > name when only a single entry made sense. >=20 > (For something like "clocks", since the property name applies to any > clock, and there certainly can be many clocks, a plural property name > makes sense. However, since each type of GPIO is "foo-gpios" rather than > an "foo" entry in "gpios", that same argument doesn't apply, and a > singular property name seems much more correct). Yeah, it's somewhat unfortunate that this is done inconsistently across different subsystems. GPIO isn't the only exception here. Regulators use a similar pattern. For consistency it'd be nice if we could get everyone to agree to one scheme, but I suspect that by now we're far beyond that being a viable option. I don't have a strong feeling either way, so if allowing both *-gpios and *-gpio properties is what we want, then I can certainly come up with a patch. Thierry --3lcZGd9BuhuYXNfi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTVhjiAAoJEN0jrNd/PrOhDbQP/3DCY/Kj3BwMOHsJ6GZSbBv4 z+RFkz8CA/Cbncs8/h7YYer2WZyzwqaHzyrcy74s74x6FNucNfAB/lIG5N18a/MG FKL81DVezZ1J+AAAWXeF5mc9ext5BXVVkyjxHbg0bPH5jGMXclnafRz8sRnLSCx1 yTAAL3xwQUZQaXqaYHo48cSDcrvaRhA0l37MM1GVg/eYM5f+ZRA5aWUHWCkzk9cz +gWRMaygup0Hkl9NzbRSo2htr8+iwDfjjbSxpt06k+gEVVW8AYzHxFOUTT4XgW2X OyadSf4WS3zKlc7FFayBk+QQrr/9RCBP+Iq07tyWwKLAYMdWQmhNOlqxmbpCf7S8 4STFmnlOrI7xnRPaV7cxT3cpqnAIIYQt09zU2KcnkRmMoptF6/zyRalPpbBtUBUi LvY2TkXF/FfTVz+vGntSN9n7+53tZedSggXzikY/ODFGtZAJxcm6Yh3VwOpMiJZM VifYaFkft3VJ1MrabUx8+mg5cLDeXwX3FhOvkuWBnuVuqZrRUXvXZjFLDveKUWQ9 JoovF4IRYYknxpNEfR5WhfgQ3m013zFNNozaUigxQLbivd3WET6zQMe5KhHtiIYg ca52SKa4ieRaGhHJzSGfKNXs7l9UoXM0g1SG6ONtBi0A0nesmEikgp6r8udYQBUZ B7/FyBeIO7gSqfKdeMXo =G3Ur -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --3lcZGd9BuhuYXNfi--