[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C85A71F.3010402@bluewatersys.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:44:47 +1200
From: Ryan Mallon <ryan@...ewatersys.com>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
CC: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
bn@...sdigital.com, avictor.za@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pio: add arch specific gpio_is_valid() function
On 09/07/2010 02:23 PM, David Brownell wrote:
> Still not liking or accepting this proposed
> change to the GPIO framework.
>
> For the AT91 case (where integers 0..N are
> IRQs, but N..max are GPIOs)
>
> A simpler solution is just to use a bit in
> the integer to indicate IRQ vs GPIO. Like
> maybe the sign bit.. which is never set on
> valid GPIO numbers, but platforms could let
> be set on IRQs.
>
How about this approach instead?
----
On some architectures gpio numbering does not start from zero. Allow for
correct behaviour of gpio_is_valid on values below the first gpio by
adding the architecture overrideable ARCH_FIRST_GPIO.
Signed-off-by: Ryan Mallon <ryan@...ewatersys.com>
----
diff --git a/include/asm-generic/gpio.h b/include/asm-generic/gpio.h
index c7376bf..01aab1f 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/gpio.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/gpio.h
@@ -22,10 +22,15 @@
#define ARCH_NR_GPIOS 256
#endif
+#ifndef ARCH_FIRST_GPIO
+#define ARCH_FIRST_GPIO 0
+#endif
+
static inline int gpio_is_valid(int number)
{
/* only some non-negative numbers are valid */
- return ((unsigned)number) < ARCH_NR_GPIOS;
+ return (number >= ARCH_FIRST_GPIO &&
+ (unsigned)number < ARCH_NR_GPIOS;
}
struct device;
--
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