Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:26:50 +0200 | From | Wolfram Sang <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] gpio/stmpe: add bitmask to block requests to unavailable GPIOs |
| |
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 06:36:05PM +0530, Rabin Vincent wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:31:37 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 03:39:50PM +0530, Rabin VINCENT wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 17:14:44 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > GPIOs on these controller are multi-functional. If you decided to use > > > > some of them e.g. as input channels for the ADC, you surely don't want > > > > those pins to be reassigned as simple GPIOs (which may be triggered even > > > > from userspace via 'export'). Same for the touchscreen controller pins. > > > > Since knowledge about the hardware is needed to decide which GPIOs to > > > > reserve, let this bitmask be inside platform_data and provide some > > > > defines to assist potential users. > > > > > > Could this be done without the platform data, say something like the > > > below? (Though this does assume that nobody tries to request GPIOs > > > before the STMPE subdrivers reserve their pins.) > > > > > > > While I'd also like to skip the additional platform_data entry, your > > last comment is in deed a drawback. > > Yes, especially if the subdrivers are dynamically loaded. Your patch is > fine with me: > > Acked-by: Rabin Vincent <rabin.vincent@stericsson.com>
Thanks.
> The only minor comment is that the STMPE_GPIO_NOREQ_811_TOUCH name could > perhaps be clearer. STMPE811_GPIO_NOREQ_TOUCHSCREEN, maybe?
I thought of STMPE_GPIO_NOREQ as common prefix, 811 as type, and TOUCH as function. But I don't insist on it; will do what it takes to get this patch upstream ;)
-- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |