[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdarDaDtWieC0rfGOQH-Hp9xa3kwhT2fPttU-dOGErE8Pw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:06:35 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
Linux-OMAP <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] gpio: Tight IRQ chip integration and banked infrastructure
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com> wrote:
> On omaps, each bank is a separate driver instance with it's own
> interrupt. Maybe really all we need to do is get rid of the "bank"
> naming, I think that's left over from 15 years ago when we did not
> have separate driver instances. It seems we should s/bank/ddata/
> on the driver to avoid confusion.
OK sorry maybe OMAP is not a target for this, I just thought so
since it was one of the platforms that is patches in the patch
series.
But I'm pretty sure we have chips with banking like this: separate
interrupts but a single device. I would have to read through them
all I guess.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists