[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkda2_nt24pweyQTtB_9gypDJTK1NHRm1LjsinEaK-G8F_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 14:34:19 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] gpiolib-of: Support 'reserved-gpio-ranges' property
Hi Stephen,
nice work!
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:13 AM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> For now, we plumb this into the gpiochip irq APIs so that
> GPIO/pinctrl drivers can use the gpiochip_irqchip_irq_valid() to
> test validity of GPIOs.
But is that the right thing to do, given that we just took the
trouble to define a DT binding that is explicitly about
any GPIO, not just IRQ capable ones?
I am worries that the *irq* infix etc on these functions
will be a bit confusing.
Is it a lot of work to make it just generic and maybe bake it
into the gpio_chip so as to refuse already in
gpiod_request_commit() in gpiolib already?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists