On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 4:28 PM Saravana Kannan saravanak@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 12:28 PM Ilya Lipnitskiy ilya.lipnitskiy@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 10:40 AM Rob Herring robh@kernel.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 01:18:56PM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 1:10 PM Ilya Lipnitskiy ilya.lipnitskiy@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Saravana,
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 1:01 PM Saravana Kannan saravanak@google.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 8:14 PM Ilya Lipnitskiy ilya.lipnitskiy@gmail.com wrote: > > [<vendor>,]nr-gpios property is used by some GPIO drivers[0] to indicate > the number of GPIOs present on a system, not define a GPIO. nr-gpios is > not configured by #gpio-cells and can't be parsed along with other > "*-gpios" properties. > > scripts/dtc/checks.c also has a special case for nr-gpio{s}. However, > nr-gpio is not really special, so we only need to fix nr-gpios suffix > here.
The only example of this that I see is "snps,nr-gpios".
arch/arm64/boot/dts/apm/apm-shadowcat.dtsi uses "apm,nr-gpios", with parsing code in drivers/gpio/gpio-xgene-sb.c. There is also code in drivers/gpio/gpio-adnp.c and drivers/gpio/gpio-mockup.c using "nr-gpios" without any vendor prefix.
Ah ok. I just grepped the DT files. I'm not sure what Rob's position is on supporting DT files not in upstream. Thanks for the clarification.
If it's something we had documented, then we have to support it
Do I read this correctly as a sort-of Ack of my proposed [PATCH v2] in this thread, since it aligns the code with the published DT schema?
He's talking about the DT binding documentation in the kernel.
I interpret Rob's reply as, you can do all of this:
- Just fix up all drivers that use "*nr-gpios" that don't have
binding documentation in the kernel. Change them to use ngpios. 2. Try to switch away old defunct ARM server DTs from nr-gpios to ngpios (both drivers and DT) and see if people notice. 3. Change the fw_devlink parsing code to have exceptions only for cases that are using nr-gpios after (1) and (2).
Yes, but (3) is not gated on (1) and (2). I'm applying v2.
Rob