Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/5] net: rfkill: gpio: remove gpio names

From: Stephen Warren <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 19:59:16 -0700

On 03/04/2014 07:37 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Warren <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> On 03/04/2014 06:43 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 
>>> 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.