[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f17812d70711132240m359fcd5doac56ab06bfe76f69@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:40:53 +0800
From: "eric miao" <eric.y.miao@...il.com>
To: "David Brownell" <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc: "Linux Kernel list" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Felipe Balbi" <felipebalbi@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
"Bill Gatliff" <bgat@...lgatliff.com>,
"Haavard Skinnemoen" <hskinnemoen@...el.com>,
"Andrew Victor" <andrew@...people.com>,
"Tony Lindgren" <tony@...mide.com>,
"Jean Delvare" <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
"Kevin Hilman" <khilman@...sta.com>,
"Paul Mundt" <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
"Ben Dooks" <ben@...nity.fluff.org>
Subject: Re: [patch/rfc 1/4] GPIO implementation framework
On Nov 14, 2007 11:30 AM, David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 November 2007, eric miao wrote:
> > > > Can we use "per gpio based" structure instead of "per gpio_chip" based one,
> > > > just like what the generic IRQ layer is doing nowadays?
> > >
> > > We "can" do most anything. What would that improve though?
>
> ... What would that improve, though? Your followup posts
> still don't answer that question for me. I see the code,
> but don't have an answer to that question.
>
to be honest, I don't feel like the holes. Put restrictions on the numbering
of GPIOs might not be a good idea either.
>
>
>
--
Cheers
- eric
-
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