Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/5] gpio: davinci: Use dev name for label and automatic base selection | From | Keerthy <> | Date | Thu, 6 Sep 2018 19:46:20 +0530 |
| |
On Wednesday 05 September 2018 04:07 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:40 AM Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> wrote: >> On Saturday 01 September 2018 12:43 AM, Andrew F. Davis wrote: >>> Use dev_name to get a unique label and use -1 for a base to get our >>> selection automatically. We pull in all GPIOs per chip now so this >>> does not have the effect of out of order labels like before. >>> >>> We do these both together so we can drop all the static data in one >>> patch. This also lets us normalize the return paths as we don't need >>> any cleanup after this change. >> >> echo 28 > /sys/class/gpio/export >> / # echo 28 > /sys/class/gpi[ 12.839205] export_store: invalid GPIO 28 >> o/export >> echo 2 > /sys/class/gp[ 22.165728] export_store: invalid GPIO 2 >> io/export >> / # echo 1 > /sys/class/gp[ 25.961392] export_store: invalid GPIO 1 >> io/export >> / # echo 3 > /sys/class/gp[ 29.981918] export_store: invalid GPIO 3 >> io/export >> >> Export fails with this patch. I am testing this on keystone-k2g-evm. > > I think the GPIO got a new number didn't it? > > Did you check the gpio file in debugfs to see which number > it got.
Okay now its numbered differently:
cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip340/ngpio 144
cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip272/ngpio 68
So gpio bank2 and bank1 have different gpio numbers. Is that acceptable?
> > This is sadly the global numberspace that we are tying to > get rid of (new apps/scripts should use the chardev). > > Are there applications that rely on the sysfs ABI on DaVinci? > > In that case base needs to be prerseved. > > Yours, > Linus Walleij >
| |