[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdYJyUE-gM+wnOQvqW4Txuf65kEJsUbdJcBhkzRZYCxYDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 23:30:28 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Bryan Wu <bryan.wu@...onical.com>,
Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] leds: Add MAX6956 driver
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> +config LEDS_MAX6956
> + tristate "LED support for MAX6956 LED Display Driver and I/O Expander"
> + depends on LEDS_CLASS
> + depends on GPIOLIB
Shouldn't this be select GPIOLIB?
You seem to require it when using this driver.
Better than hiding it if not selecting GPIOLIB somewhere else?
> +struct max6956_ddata {
> + struct device *dev;
> +
> + struct mutex lock;
> +
> + struct regmap *regmap;
> +
> + struct gpio_chip gpio_chip;
> +
> + struct max6956_pdata pdata;
> +
> + struct max6956_led_ddata leds[32];
> +
> + const char *gpio_names[32];
> +};
You can never have enough whitespace? ;-)
Anyway, so this thing has a gpio_chip and leds.
The archaic way is to create mfd/max-6956.c and have this
MFD device spawn two cells, one for GPIO landing in
driver/gpio/gpio-max6956.c and one for LED landing in
leds/leds-max6956.c, then mediate register read/writes and
regmap in the MFD driver.
The MFD driver decide using platform data whether each
line should be used for a LED or GPIO.
Is there some problem with this design pattern?
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