[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4557E6E4.5050307@billgatliff.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:30:44 -0600
From: Bill Gatliff <bgat@...lgatliff.com>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
CC: Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Andrew Victor <andrew@...people.com>,
Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...el.com>, jamey.hicks@...com,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...sta.com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@....org>,
Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Subject: Re: [patch/rfc 2.6.19-rc5] arch-neutral GPIO calls
David:
David Brownell wrote:
>I know there have been discussions about standardizing GPIOs before,
>but nothing quite "took". One of the more recent ones was
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=110873454720555&w=2
>
>Below, find what I think is a useful proposal, trivially implementable on
>many ARMs (at91, omap, pxa, ep93xx, ixp2000, pnx4008, davinci, more) as well
>as the new AVR32.
>
>Compared to the proposal above, key differences include:
>
>
Excellent proposal, I think it should be implemented as-is. I don't
care that this proposal only works for "real" GPIOs, and doesn't provide
for a userspace API.
At its worst, this proposal offers an intermediate step towards a
framework that can do both synchronous/real and asynchronous GPIO
control. At its best, provides a starting point for that framework AND
a much-needed unification in an API that could really use cleaning up
TODAY. No downside, in my opinion.
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
bgat@...lgatliff.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists