[PATCH 1/3] gpio: Add simple poweroff-gpio driver

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:10:59 +0100, Linus Walleij [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Anton Vorontsov
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:35:36AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Stephen Warren [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 11/12/2012 11:43 AM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:

quoted

quoted

Should the gpio driver fix its bindings then?.. Polarity is a quite
generic concept of a GPIO, and flags are there for a reason. I'd rather
prefer having

There is no "GPIO driver" to fix; each GPIO driver has its own bindings,
and unfortunately, some of the GPIO binding authors chose not to include
any flags cell in the GPIO specifier (e.g. Samsung ARM SoCs IIRC, but
there are probably more).

So can I read this something like we have been too liberal with the
GPIO DT bindings and they are now a bit messy and need to be shaped
up? I don't know how to achieve that :-(

I guess there's really no reason to panic. :)

'git grep gpio-cells Documentation/' shows just mrvl-gpio.txt and
twl6040.txt having the wrong gpio-cells (i.e. 1).

But even these can use one cells for both flags and pin number (unless you
really have 4294967295 GPIOs per controller).

FWIW, current Samsung SOCs use 3 and even 4 cells for a GPIO specifier,
which is absolutely fine. Plus, the Samsung bindings do specify the
inversion flag. So, unless we have a lot of other [undocumented] bindings,
I don't see a big mess. And everything I currently see is fixable.

I agree it's not that big a mess...

I was more thinking about how to convince the people who can
test this to fix it up.

+1. Most drivers use the same definitions for flags. New drivers should
be pushed to do the same. And the few that don't can be fixed up
individually.

g.

-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc, P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies, Ltd.