On 03/04/2014 07:37 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Warren [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 03/04/2014 06:43 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:

quoted

quoted

If I understand the situation correctly it's like ACPI does not have named
GPIOs so keeping specifying this in DT GPIO bindings is counter-productive
to the work of abstracting the access to GPIO handlers so that drivers
need not know whether ACPI or DT is used for describing the hardware.

For devices that already have both ACPI and DT bindings, we can't
pretend they can be the same; they are already potentially different. We
simply need to parse DT and ACPI differently, since that's the sway
their bindings are defined.

For any devices that don't have both ACPI and DT bindings, I agree we
should certainly strive to make any new bindings aligned so we don't
have to deal with this for them.

However, we can't change the past.

Yeah, right, so for this very driver there are no bindings defined (yet)
and the only device tree I can find referencing it is the Tegra20-paz00
and it just use gpios = <>;

So in this case I think this patch is the right way forward, but I admit
I'm really uncertain in the general case.

If there are no bindings defined at all yet, then we can define both DT
and ACPI bindings to use name-based GPIOs. Index-based lookups aren't a
good way forward.