From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 07/16] gpio: Add support for unified device
 properties interface
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:17:24 -0700
Message-ID: <20140923161724.GA40700@core.coreip.homeip.net>
References: <1410868367-11056-1-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
 <1410868367-11056-8-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
 <CACRpkdaZJt_6cd1vtDw-Ys+YqUhNb0aXazUxGCX8mk4=6EmdHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <12538216.vu4CbU01qP@wuerfel>
 <20140923155202.GT1786@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140923155202.GT1786@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>, Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>, Bryan Wu <cooloney@gmail.com>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 06:52:02PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 05:45:57PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 September 2014 17:25:50 Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Mika Westerberg
> > > <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Some drivers need to deal with only firmware representation of its
> > > > GPIOs. An example would be a GPIO button array driver where each button
> > > > is described as a separate firmware node in device tree. Typically these
> > > > child nodes do not have physical representation in the Linux device
> > > > model.
> > > >
> > > > In order to help device drivers to handle such firmware child nodes we
> > > > add dev[m]_node_get_named_gpiod() that takes a firmware node pointer as
> > > > parameter, finds the GPIO using whatever is the underlying firmware
> > > > method, and requests the GPIO properly.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> > > 
> > > I have a hard time figuring out if this is what we want for common
> > > accessors between DT and ACPI.
> > > 
> > > Can I get some input from Grant, Arnd, Mark, Darren...?
> > 
> > I just took a brief look at this. My first impression is that the
> > fw_dev_node structure is weird when all callers just do (in patch 2)
> > 
> > +	struct fw_dev_node fdn = {
> > +		.of_node = dev->of_node,
> > +		.acpi_node = ACPI_COMPANION(dev),
> > +	};
> > 
> > I'd much rather see an interface that passes the 'struct device'
> > pointer down to dev_get_named_gpiod() and all other exported
> > functions, and then internally does the conversion at the point
> > where the access is done.
> 
> Problem is that if you don't have the dev pointer in the first place.
> Please look how leds-gpio.c or gpio_keys_polled.c are using this.
> 
> Of course you have the first level device but when you need to iterate
> "leds" or "buttons" below where there is no Linux device available we
> need something like this.

Maybe we should be passing the parent/owner device to the iterator
functions?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry