On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 05:21:23PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 2:18 AM Alexander Sverdlin > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Currently the naming of the GPIO chips depends on their order in the DT, > > but also on the kernel version (I've noticed the change from v5.10.x to > > v5.11). Honor the persistent enumeration in the "aliases" node like other > > GPIO drivers do. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Sverdlin <[email protected]> > > --- > > Yes, I noticed checkpatch "WARNING: DT binding docs and includes should be > > a separate patch." > > However, the parts below are tiny and barely make sense separately. > > I've shut it down in the past because the instance ordering is a > linuxism and the needs are in the Linux userspace somehow. > It is different from a UART for example, which always need to > be at the same place on any operating system, hence it has an > alias. > > For kernelspace the instance order should not matter, since > all resources are obtained from the device tree anyway > by phandle.
Thank you! Can we remove the ones we have already for GPIO? BTW, It's been on my todo list for a while to start requiring documentation of alias names so we can reject new ones and get rid of some of the unused existing ones. Some platforms have numbered everything... Rob
