[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F567FE7.4020507@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:21:43 -0700
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...escale.com>,
Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@...aro.org>,
Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@...aro.org>,
Rajendra Nayak <rajendra.nayak@...aro.org>,
Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...vell.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: split pincontrol states into its own header
On 03/06/2012 02:15 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
>
> Move the pin control state defines into its own header file,
> since it is used both by machine.h which is facing the platform
> and by consumer.h which is facing the drivers, and pinctrl.h
> which is pinctrl-driver internal, let's not have each and every
> .h file include all others, then isolation is moot.
>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Sure. I'm not quite sure how many (or how many standardized) states we
expect to have such that it warrants 'pinctrl-state.h' vs. say
'pinctrl-common.h', but it's probably fine.
Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
--
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