[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F7B8A39.5000701@antcom.de>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 01:39:37 +0200
From: Roland Stigge <stigge@...com.de>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
CC: arm@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linus.walleij@...ricsson.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: Device tree support for LPC32xx
Hi Grant,
thanks for your notes!
On 03/04/12 17:04, Grant Likely wrote:
>> +postcore_initcall(lpc32xx_gpio_init);
>
> module_platform_driver() please. Also, now that deferred probe is
> merged, there should no longer be any need to mess around with
> initcall levels to get gpio drivers probed early.
With module_platform_driver(), I get a new error reported after this
change, coming much earlier before the GPIO registration (which is
deferred now, of course):
===============================================================
Error requesting gpio 50
...
gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 0 to 7 on device: gpio_p0
gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 8 to 31 on device: gpio_p1
gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 32 to 44 on device: gpio_p2
gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 45 to 50 on device: gpio_p3
gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 51 to 78 on device: gpi_p3
gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 79 to 102 on device: gpo_p3
===============================================================
Seems to be caused by this device tree:
leds {
compatible = "gpio-leds";
led0 {
gpios = <&gpo_p3 1 1>; /* GPO_P3 1, GPIO 80, active low */
linux,default-trigger = "heartbeat";
default-state = "keep";
};
};
Are you sure that module_platform_driver() can already handle
this in v3.4-rc1?
Thanks in advance,
Roland
--
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