[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <255134.38265.qm@web180307.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 10:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: Ben Nizette <bn@...sdigital.com>
Cc: Ryan Mallon <ryan@...ewatersys.com>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
avictor.za@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pio: add arch specific gpio_is_valid() function
> gpio_is_valid determines whether a gpio /can/ be attached to acontroller,
Or more simply: whether its numeric prameter is
a valid argument to gpio_request() and friends.
gpio_request determines whether that gpio
> currently /is/
> attached to a controller.
Of course, "controller" is out of sight of folk
just using GPIOs. Otherwise, that's a fair take
on one set of gpio_request() error reports.
Part of the confusion seems
> to come at least
> in part from the overlooking of facility for dynamically added gpio numbers.
Maybe, but I think most of it came from folk who
expected "valid" to mean (your terminology) the
GPIO number is now connected to a controller.
(Otherwise $SUBJECT would be meaningless since
there'd be no arch-specific issue.
>
> Fix the documentation to clarify these points.
Patch is forthcoming.
--
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