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"
next prev parent 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).