devicetree.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
To: Alex Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: How about a gpio_get(device *, char *) function?
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:25:41 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <509142F5.4010307@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <38620644.IyR5R8rjKP@percival>

On 10/31/2012 03:04 AM, Alex Courbot wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Would anyone be opposed to having a gpio_get() function that works similarly 
> to e.g. regulator_get() and clk_get()?

One major stumbling block is that with device tree, each individual
binding gets to decide on the specific naming of the propert{y,ies} that
define the GPIO(s) for the device, and so there's no way to provide a
generic implementation of that function.

Related, I've always wished that DT nodes looked like:

device {
    reg = <...>;
    compatible = <...>;
    resources {
        pwms = <...>;
        regulators = <...>;
        clocks = <...>;
        gpios = <...>;
        other-devices = <...>; /* for custom API dependencies */
    };
    config {
        /* device-specific properties */
    };
    child-busses {
        0 = { ... };
        1 = { ... };
    };
};

... specifically so that all resource allocation, and perhaps even child
bus enumeration, could be completely standardized in the DT/device core.
This could also feed into deferred probe, which could then be purely
implemented inside the DT/driver core. However, that'd require something
incompatible like "device tree 2.0"

  reply	other threads:[~2012-10-31 15:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-10-31  9:04 How about a gpio_get(device *, char *) function? Alex Courbot
2012-10-31 15:25 ` Stephen Warren [this message]
     [not found]   ` <509142F5.4010307-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org>
2012-11-01  2:48     ` Alex Courbot
2012-11-04 18:04 ` Linus Walleij
2012-11-05  7:31   ` Alex Courbot
2012-11-05 12:09     ` Linus Walleij
2012-11-26 11:25       ` Grant Likely
2012-11-05 17:35   ` Stephen Warren
2012-11-06  1:33     ` Alex Courbot
2012-11-07 21:24       ` Linus Walleij
2012-11-08  6:14         ` Alex Courbot
     [not found]         ` <CACRpkdYqCQc0Er1JR_eVzZPCycvKjd0Pph8Dcay0FbU3Q64D8A-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2012-11-08  6:23           ` Alex Courbot
2012-11-13 13:13             ` Linus Walleij
2012-11-07 21:28     ` Linus Walleij
2012-11-26 11:14       ` Grant Likely
2012-11-28  3:38         ` Alex Courbot
2012-11-29 17:34           ` Grant Likely
2012-12-01 18:41             ` Linus Walleij
2012-12-03 14:15               ` Grant Likely
2012-11-26 11:17 ` Grant Likely

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=509142F5.4010307@wwwdotorg.org \
    --to=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
    --cc=acourbot@nvidia.com \
    --cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
    --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).