From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laxman Dewangan Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] gpio: of: Add support to have multiple gpios in gpio-hog Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:23:55 +0530 Message-ID: <56E16053.60802@nvidia.com> References: <1457438528-29054-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <56E05AA9.8000503@wwwdotorg.org> <56E11D34.60401@nvidia.com> <2337414.ntEtcfKnX0@hermes> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hqemgate15.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.64]:3248 "EHLO hqemgate15.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753708AbcCJMHL (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:07:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: <2337414.ntEtcfKnX0@hermes> Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Markus Pargmann Cc: Stephen Warren , linus.walleij@linaro.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, pawel.moll@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, treding@nvidia.com, Benoit Parrot , Alexandre Courbot On Thursday 10 March 2016 04:46 PM, Markus Pargmann wrote: > On Thursday 10 March 2016 12:37:32 Laxman Dewangan wrote: >> On Wednesday 09 March 2016 10:47 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> On 03/09/2016 06:20 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >>> The problem with that is the description used when acquiring the GPIO >>> is just "wlan_input", "wlan_output", or "wlan_control". There's >>> nothing to indicate what those individual pins do (perhaps one is a >>> reset signal, one is a regulator enable, etc.?) By requiring separate >>> nodes for each GPIO, then the node name can provide a meaningful >>> semantic name/description for each GPIO, which provides much more >>> information. >>> >> On this case, we have already property "line-name" and passed the name >> of the gpio via this property. >> The property names is "line-name" which is good for one string. We can >> support other property "line-names" with multiple string per GPIO index. >> >> line-names = "wlan-reset", "wlan-enable"; > There is currently a discussion about the future bindings for subnodes in GPIO > controller nodes. Please have a look at these two mail threads: > > "Device tree binding documentation for gpio-switch" > "gpio: of: Add support to have multiple gpios in gpio-hog" Second one is this patch only. Is it by intention? The binding details about the gpio-switch and names are given by property "lable". I think property "label" is standard way of going forward i.e. I post similar patch for gpio-keys device name from DT after got review comment. So here, we can have the gpio names under property "label" or "labels". Or am I missing anything?