On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:15:31PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 04:18:52PM -0700, Trent Piepho wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > > Despite leds-gpio and leds-openfirmware-gpio similar purposes, there
> > > is not much code can be shared between the two drivers (both are mostly
> > > driver bindings anyway).
> > 
> > Why can't this driver use the existing gpio-led driver?  Basically, do
> > something like this:
> > 
> > of_gpio_leds_probe(...)
> > {
> >  	gpio = of_get_gpio(np, 0);
> >  	label = of_get_property(np, "label", NULL);
> > 
> >  	struct gpio_led led = {
> >  		.name = label,
> >  		.gpio = gpio,
> >  	};
> > 
> >  	pdev = platform_device_register_simple("leds-gpio", 0, NULL, 0);
> >  	platform_device_add_data(pdev, &led, sizeof(led));
> > }
> 
> Ugh; that means registering *2* 'struct device' with the kernel instead of
> one.  One as a platform device and one as an of_platform device.
> It's bad enough that the LED scheme we're using for OF bindings has a
> separate registration for every single LED.
> 
> Now that it comes to it, I worry that this driver takes the wrong
> approach.  The number of resources dedicated per LED in this driver
> seems pretty loony to me (one of_platform device per LED).  The fact
> that the binding specifies one node per LED makes of_platform not a very
> efficient solution.
> 
> I think it would be better to have a module that scans the device tree
> for LED nodes and registers a single leds-gpio platform device for the
> whole lot.
> 
> Thoughts?

I like the idea, thanks.

-- 
Anton Vorontsov
email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com
irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/