From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mika Westerberg Subject: Re: "gpio-line-names" property - issue with commit 9427ecbed46cc Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:08:27 +0200 Message-ID: <20171215100827.GU22431@lahna.fi.intel.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:43634 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756229AbdLOKRP (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Dec 2017 05:17:15 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: Christophe LEROY , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 02:37:07PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Christophe LEROY > wrote: > > > Why is it necessary now to set a parent to the GPIO chip whereas it was not > > necessary before ? > (...) > > Is there an easy modification that can be done to your new function > > devprop_gpiochip_set_names() in order to have the GPIO drivers work as > > before ? > > I am also worried about this. > > I have felt that the device property paradigm is too ambitious and assume > too much about the subtle semantic differences between DT and ACPI > DSDT. But maybe I'm just whiney. > > Looking forward to good ideas on how to solve this! I think we can fix this by passing struct fwnode_handle to devprop_gpiochip_set_names(). Then the existing drivers don't need to be changed and we update of_gpiochip_add() to call it like: devprop_gpiochip_set_names(chip, of_fwnode_handle(chip->of_node)); or so. > Mika: is is possible to revert this without breaking something else, if we > need to? It breaks ACPI "gpio-line-names" users but I think we don't need to revert if if do what I'm proposing above :)