[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdaO2oPoT0Vg7sLBoGfM-x3evaAW1rOtB4Wbggu5cbMQ_g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 10:37:15 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
David Cohen <david.a.cohen@...el.com>,
"linux-gpio @ vger . kernel . org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...el.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel @ vger . kernel . org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] gpiolib: append SFI helpers for GPIO API
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-11-21 at 12:40 +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 04:31:35PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> > +struct gpio_desc *sfi_get_gpiod_by_name(const char *name);
>>
>> I'm wondering should this function be exported at all? What the drivers
>> should be using is gpiod_get_xxx() APIs and not DT/ACPI/SFI specific
>> interfaces.
>
> I won't mix this with generic stuff since we have really few users of
> SFI and there should be no new users at all.
>
>> Yeah, we have the same in ACPI version but I'm planning to get rid of it
>> completely.
>
> I'm okay to move to this direction, if Linus and others are okay with
> it.
Go for it. Mika is right that we need to get rid of any custom calls
and this is the way ACPI is moving too...
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