From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: GPIO bindings guidelines (Was: Re: [PATCH v5 10/12] gpio:
 Support for unified device properties interface)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:10:44 +0300
Message-ID: <20141022081044.GB1484@lahna.fi.intel.com>
References: <CAAVeFuLW6fucvDxQvY5DDfnhPrgYM+1pi7WoHfBQa_BgYnc_Cw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4582579.9WMrIMALsy@wuerfel>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4582579.9WMrIMALsy@wuerfel>
Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>, ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>, "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>, Bryan Wu <cooloney@gmail.com>, Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 09:54:45AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 October 2014 14:14:02 Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > >
> > > We have enforced naming things for the dmaengine binding, which has
> > > just led to everyone calling things "rx" and "tx". My fear is that
> > > if we start to enforce giving a name, we'd end up with lots of
> > > drivers that use a "gpio-gpios" property or something silly.
> > 
> > Checking the bindings is also part of the review process.  Things
> > like "gpio-gpios" should simply not be accepted to begin with.
> > 
> > This sounds like a good chance to finally land some guidelines
> > regarding GPIO bindings. Let's summarize the situation:
> > - GPIO bindings can be defined using both DT and ACPI (both interfaces
> > nicely abstracted by the interface introduced by this series)
> > - Both firmware interfaces support indexed GPIOs
> > - Both firmware interfaces support named GPIO properties, with an
> > optional index (can we absolutely take this for granted on ACPI now?)
> 
> The developers working on it have said that they definitely want to
> be compatible with the existing bindings, so the answer to your question
> is yes.

One thing to consider still is that we have plenty of existing ACPI code
out there where _DSD is not used but instead we rely on the index. An
example would be rfkill-gpio.c driver:

        gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(&pdev->dev, "reset", 0);
        if (!IS_ERR(gpio)) {
		...
        }

        gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(&pdev->dev, "shutdown", 1);
        if (!IS_ERR(gpio)) {
		...
        }

It expects that GPIOs returned from _CRS are in specific order. Since we
can't change these existing ACPI tables, we must support them somehow.

This patch series handles it so that:

  1) If we can't find given property (e.g "reset-gpios" or
     "shutdown-gpios") the index above will refer directly to the GPIO
     resource returned from _CRS.

  2) If the property is found we ignore index and take it from the
     property instead.

This has the drawback that we cannot support this:

	Package () { "reset-gpios", Package () { ^GPIO, 0, 0, 0, ^GPIO, 1, 0, 0}}
                                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So the second entry in the above is not accessible using
gpiod_get_index() and the reason is that we want to support the existing
and new ACPI tables where _DSD is not being used.