Messages in this thread | | | From | David Brownell <> | Subject | Re: [patch/rfc 1/4] GPIO implementation framework | Date | Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:46:54 -0800 |
| |
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, David Brownell wrote: > So the point of these is to make it easier for platforms > (or even just boards) to make sure the GPIO number space > is densely packed, rather than loosely so? Paying about > 2KBytes for that privilege. (Assuming a 32 bit system > with 256 GPIOs.) > > I could see that being a reasonable tradeoff. I wouldn't > have started there myself, but you know how that goes! > > Does anyone else have any comments on that issue?
Nobody else seems to have any comments on Eric's series of patches to add a gpio_desc layer ... whereas, I was looking at updating one platform, and got annoyed at some stuff that would have been non-issues with them in place!
Eric, would you feel like rolling an all-in-one patch against the gpiolib support from 2.6.24-rc3-mm? Including updated versions of your patches:
- [PATCH 2/5] define gpio_chip.requested_str (renaming it as "label" to match its usage) - [PATCH 3/5] use a per GPIO "struct gpio_desc" (but without that needless list; for debug, just scan the gpio_desc list for the next non-null chip) - [PATCH] move per GPIO "is_out" to "struct gpio_desc" (i.e. patch 4/5) - [PATCH 5/5] move per GPIO "requested" to "struct gpio_desc" (and "label" too)
along with removing the ARCH_GPIOS_PER_CHIP symbol, and reducing ARCH_NR_GPIOS to a value which will waste less space by default? (Like maybe 256.)
I think an all-in-one patch will be easier to review and agree on including (or not).
- Dave - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |