On 02/25/2014 02:13 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:35 AM, Stephen Warren [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 02/20/2014 06:55 PM, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:

quoted

quoted

That's correct. However using con_id to pass this results in different
behavior across DT and ACPI. A better way is to export the labeling
function so consumers can set meaningful labels themselves.

...

As in tegra30-beaver.dts...

    sdhci@78000000 {
            status = "okay";
            cd-gpios = <&gpio TEGRA_GPIO(I, 5) GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
            wp-gpios = <&gpio TEGRA_GPIO(T, 3) GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
            power-gpios = <&gpio TEGRA_GPIO(D, 7) GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
            bus-width = <4>;
    };

Instead of passing the GPIOs as index 0,1,2 they are named
and I do admit this has a nice "things are under control" aspect
to it.

In the ACPI case the con_id is not used for anything.

So it is basically there to satisfy the habit in some device
tree bindings to name gpio arrays instead of just passing gpios = <...>;
(The latter should be encouraged going forward.)

Do you really want to switch from named GPIO lookups to index-based GPIO
lookups? Index-based lookups make it much harder to extend the DT
binding in a backwards-compatible fashion, especially in the face of
optional GPIOs (of which all of CD, WP, power are).

If we switch to a single gpios property, I'd assert we should still do
named-based lookups using a parallel gpio-names property, just like most
(all?) other resource types now support. If we do that, we'll still need
the name parameter.