[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4562760E.3000906@billgatliff.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 21:44:14 -0600
From: Bill Gatliff <bgat@...lgatliff.com>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
CC: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
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 Brownell wrote:
>A fine example of two platform-specific notions. First, that GPIO signals
>are muxed in that way ... they could easily have dedicated pins!! Second,
>that there's even a one-to-one association between pins and GPIOs ... I'll
>repeat the previous example of OMAP1, where certain GPIOs could come out on
>any of several pins. And where some pins can be muxed to work with more
>than one GPIO (but only one at a time, of course). Clearly, neither pin
>refcounting nor GPIO claiming can be sufficient to prevent such problems ...
>
>
So, you're saying that if GPIOA1 can come out on pins ZZ1 and BB6, then
there would be two unique "GPIO numbers", one for each possibility?
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