On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 02:02:53AM +0300, Anton Vorontsov wrote: [...] > It's pretty trivial to implement (of_get_named_gpio() -- could be just > factored out of of_get_gpio()). > > Though, > > 1. The idea is quite extreme. It needs discussion, and furthermore, > we need to define when do we use gpios = <> and when something-gpio = > <>; We need to be consistent, and to be consistent, the rules should > be clear and written. > > 2. We should think about it very very carefully. Do we want to lose the > track of gpios? For example, there are quite defined rules when (and > in what properties) you may encounter memory addresses, when and > where you can encounter interrupt specifiers. We do the same for > gpios, and so far it works great. We need to think about any possible > drawbacks of the scheme you purpose (we would never know where to > expect gpios - it isn't a problem per se, but maybe it could lead > to some problem in future? I don't know.) > > Quite honestly I don't like the idea... maybe I just used to > interrupts = <>, reg = <>, ranges = <>, interrupt-map = <> and so > forth, and now my subconsciousness tells me "it's wrong to do > something-interrupt = <> stuff." ;-)
Btw, not that I hate this new scheme, sometimes the scheme is even inevitable. For example when we have gpios with two or more ellipsis: gpios = <... ...>. But this should be a separate discussion, really. -- Anton Vorontsov email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
