[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=M3FxU6vv_aq1rLTmXQCGps=hC=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:38:01 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Ben Nizette <bn@...sdigital.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: add pin biasing and drive mode to gpiolib
2011/4/20 Ben Nizette <bn@...sdigital.com>:
> On 19/04/2011, at 6:38 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> Leaving aside the current input/output and on/off bits I would go for
>> being able to do
>>
>> gpio_get_property(gpio, GPIO_BIAS, GPIO_BIAS_WHATEVER);
>> gpio_set_property(gpio, GPIO_BIAS, GPIO_BIAS_WHATEVER_ELSE);
>
> Yeah I'm all for that so long as the capability constants are defined by the gpio
> provider, eg <linux/gpio/mygpioexpander.h>. There's no way gpiolib should be
> keeping a big ole list of every possible config option for every gpio provider.
OK I buy that. I will refactor this solution to some opaque call instead
and start from there.
> Well, maybe gpiolib can know about the options (eg GPIO_BIAS) so long
> as it doesn't have to enumerate every possible value.
I will drop that even, one parameter is better than two if one of them
is custom nevertheless. What difference does it make..
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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