[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VcyPy5kO+Ra-fPqaXZOp66sTe=L6W4UF00JWA6LP_KGeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 22:43:31 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>
Cc: "Mani, Rajmohan" <rajmohan.mani@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] gpio: Add support for TPS68470 GPIOs
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 04:40:16PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi> wrote:
>> > Again, I'm not really worried about this driver, but the ACPI tables. How
>> > does the difference show there?
>>
>> Same way. You will have common numbering over the chip [0, 9]. It will
>> be just an abstraction inside the driver.
>
> Oh, in that case that should be a non-issue.
>> Above states the opposite, so, it's clear to me that abstraction of 2
>> GPIO chips over 1 can be utilized here.
>
> Sounds fine to me, taken that this does not add complications to ACPI
> tables.
They just need to share the same ACPI_HANDLE (it might require to do
this in generic way in gpiolib) and have a continuous numbering (easy
to achieve with carefully chosen bases).
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists