[PATCH] gpio: mxs: implement get_direction callback
j.uzycki at elproma.com.pl
Mon Nov 17 06:45:00 PST 2014
W dniu 2014-11-17 o 10:26, Richard Genoud pisze:
> 2014-11-17 0:59 GMT+01:00 Janusz Użycki <j.uzycki at elproma.com.pl>:
>> W dniu 2014-11-16 o 22:42, Uwe Kleine-König pisze:
>> Thanks Uwe. I fully agree with you.
>> a) was just a starter to your suggestion. My options were too conservative -
>> I just
>> wanted to avoid tests on hardware I don't have.
>> I don't understand why gpiod_get_direction() always requires the callback
>> and b) would be broken (I'm not so familiar with gpiolib) but I don't need
>> it now.
>> So, it looks we can drop the gpio-mxs patch, yes?
>> And, I or Richard should submit a patch for
>> to introduce the irq helper, yes?
> You're welcome to do it !
> At the time the mctrl_helpers were introduced, there was only one user
> (atmel_serial), so the line between specific code and factorizable
> code was not so clear.
> But clearly, the more we factorize, the better !
>> You wrote passing uart_port is enough. Argument "name" for request_irq() can
>> recovered from dev_name(dev) or dev_driver_string(dev) where dev =
> And, honestly, I'm not sure dev_name(dev) is a good name.
> Having something like dev_name(dev)_port_id_CTS may be better.
For names other than device's or driver's name I would need to allocate
string. Is it so important? You can simple check the interrupt and
50: 0 gpio-mxs 21 80072000.serial
80: 0 gpio-mxs 18 8006c000.serial
81: 0 gpio-mxs 19 8006c000.serial
83: 0 gpio-mxs 21 8006c000.serial
84: 0 gpio-mxs 22 8006c000.serial
> Seems ok !
More information about the linux-arm-kernel