[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4563C5B1.2040304@billgatliff.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:36:17 -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:
David Brownell wrote:
>I know some folk say they "need" to remux after boot in non-exceptional cases,
>but the ability to do that (or not) really seems like a separate discussion.
>
>
I don't need to REmux, but I don't want to bother setting up the routing
manually at all. I think the GPIO management stuff can do it properly
on my behalf, given the information we have to acquire to get the GPIO
API to work in the first place.
Kind of like with request_irq() and enable_irq(). The driver is saying,
"I don't care what's actually behind this interrupt source X, I just
want it routed over to me". If we commit to hiding the muxing behind
the API, instead of defining a new, parallel API, we get that kind of
mentality for GPIO as well.
That's all. Go forth and code. :)
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