[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <569801.35222.qm@web180310.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 11:10:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@...il.com>,
Ryan Mallon <ryan@...ewatersys.com>
Cc: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, avictor.za@...il.com,
bn@...sdigital.com,
Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pio: add arch specific gpio_is_valid() function
--- On Mon, 9/6/10, Ryan Mallon <ryan@...ewatersys.com> wrote:
> > The intent of my patch was to keep gpio_is_valid
> simple, but add
> a simple check for architectures where the base gpio is not
> zero. Will
> wait and see what David has to say.
NAK still. You're trying to abuse gpio_is_valid(),
which I see no need to support.
In terms of GPIO framework architecture, zero is
the first GPIO in all cases, and is always
a valid GPIO number, even if it's not
requestable/swritable/readable on a given board.
Whether it's usable on a given platform depends
on whether a GPIO controller is registered which
claims numbers 0..N ... (assuming gpiolib in use).
--
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