From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] gpio: New driver for LSI ZEVIO SoCs Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:11:14 -0600 Message-ID: <521D07E2.80209@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1377460180-6192-1-git-send-email-fabian@ritter-vogt.de> <20130827144043.GN19893@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130827144043.GN19893@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Rutland Cc: Fabian Vogt , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linus.walleij@linaro.org" , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , Pawel Moll , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "ian.campbell@citrix.com" List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On 08/27/2013 08:40 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 08:49:40PM +0100, Fabian Vogt wrote: >> This driver supports the GPIO controller found in LSI ZEVIO SoCs. >> It has been successfully tested on a TI nspire CX calculator. >> --- >> .../devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-zevio.txt | 18 ++ >> drivers/gpio/Kconfig | 6 + >> drivers/gpio/Makefile | 1 + >> drivers/gpio/gpio-zevio.c | 214 +++++++++++++++++++++ >> 4 files changed, 239 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-zevio.txt >> create mode 100644 drivers/gpio/gpio-zevio.c >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-zevio.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-zevio.txt >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..892f953 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-zevio.txt >> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ >> +Zevio GPIO controller >> + >> +Required properties: >> +- compatible = "lsi,zevio-gpio" >> +- reg = >> +- #gpio-cells = <2> >> +- gpio-controller; > > I take it there's nothing else known about at present that we might want > to describe in future (e.g. input clocks)? > > This is more for the other dt maintainers, but I've seen a lot of > variation in how we describe properties, and it would be nice to unify > that. Does anyone fancy writing a document pushing for some standard > terminology and formatting, or should I? I was hoping that the DT schema system would tighten this up, since there would be specific syntax in the schema to describe all these options. I was thinking of writing a DT binding review checklist, but so far haven't made time to do so. It'd probably be reasonable to include any specific wording requirements for property descriptions in that document.