Re: How about a gpio_get(device *, char *) function?

[Stephen Warren]

On 10/31/2012 03:04 AM, Alex Courbot wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Would anyone be opposed to having a gpio_get() function that works similarly 
> to e.g. regulator_get() and clk_get()?

One major stumbling block is that with device tree, each individual
binding gets to decide on the specific naming of the propert{y,ies} that
define the GPIO(s) for the device, and so there's no way to provide a
generic implementation of that function.

Related, I've always wished that DT nodes looked like:

device {
    reg = <...>;
    compatible = <...>;
    resources {
        pwms = <...>;
        regulators = <...>;
        clocks = <...>;
        gpios = <...>;
        other-devices = <...>; /* for custom API dependencies */
    };
    config {
        /* device-specific properties */
    };
    child-busses {
        0 = { ... };
        1 = { ... };
    };
};

... specifically so that all resource allocation, and perhaps even child
bus enumeration, could be completely standardized in the DT/device core.
This could also feed into deferred probe, which could then be purely
implemented inside the DT/driver core. However, that'd require something
incompatible like "device tree 2.0"
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/