Hello Linus,

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 10:25:45AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Uwe Kleine-K?nig
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 08:56:58AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:

quoted

quoted

The GPIO numbering scheme is a matter of Linux internals and
not about hardware description IMO.

Not sure if I should agree here or not. It's very usual that the
"internal" gpio numbers match the hardware reference manual. I know this
from imx, at91, all pre-dt platforms, I'm sure there are more, and I bet
I'm not the only one relying on this for omap.

I think it will still match nicely against the chip-local offsets of the
primary gpiochip so it'll be fine with a chardev too. The same was/is

I cannot follow. What is the primary gpiochip? The first one? What is a
"chip-local offset". Just 3 for the fourth gpio of a given gpio bank?
I guess the problem is that I didn't follow development of the gpio
chardev.

the case of the first interrupts on x86 I think, but with the plethora of
irqchips and dependency on probe order etc the assumption is
nowadays to dangerous.

quoted

And this is very usual in the dt world, too:

$ git grep -El 'gpio. = \&gpio' arch/arm/boot/dts | wc -l
37

Aha I didn't even know. Well I guess I could allow it for OMAP too
then, but I want an ACK from one of the DT binding maintainers.

I added Rob, Frank, Mark and the device tree list to the recipients of
this mail. Can you please comment? There is already a v2 that you can
find at http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.gpio/17399/ in case
it didn't hit your mailbox. If you tell me that you want it, I can also
bounce you the series.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K?nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |