Re: [PATCH] Input: Add new driver for GPIO beeper

[Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:23:46PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/12/2013 03:59 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:47:57AM +0000, Alexander Shiyan wrote:
> >> Hello.
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:07:13AM +0000, Alexander Shiyan wrote:
> >>>> This patch adds a new driver for the beeper controlled via GPIO pin.
> >>>> The driver does not depend on the architecture and is positioned as
> >>>> a replacement for the specific drivers that are used for this function.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@mail.ru>
> >> ...
> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-beeper.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-beeper.txt
> >> ...
> >>>> +Example:
> >>>> +
> >>>> +beeper: input@0 {
> >>>> +	compatible = "gpio-beeper";
> >>>> +	reg = <0>;
> >>>> +	gpios = <&gpio3 23 0>;
> >>>> +};
> >>>
> >>> What are the reg / unit-address for?
> >>
> >> Just an example from "simple-bus" container.
> > 
> > If they have no meaning, they should go. They're unnecessary and make
> > things more confusing.
> > 
> > I'd expect the example to be:
> > 
> > beeper: beeper {
> > 	compatible = "gpio-beeper";
> > 	gpios - <&gpio3 23 0>;
> > };
> > 
> > And if we have multiple beepers, something like:
> > 
> > beeper0: beeper0 { ... };
> > beeper1: beeper1 { ... };
> 
> DT node names aren't meant to encode identity though. What we've done in
> the past for nodes without a reg where multiple instances were desired
> is to put them into simple-bus and add a reg, so:
> 
> beeper0: beeper@0 { reg = <0>; ... };
> beeper1: beeper@1 { reg = <1>; ... };
> 
> Of course, if there's only one of them, then it could just be "beeper"
> with no reg. The binding and example should probably reflect that simple
> case.

So do we have an agreement on bindings? Otherwise the driver looks good
to me.

-- 
Dmitry