Stephen Warren wrote at Friday, October 21, 2011 12:26 PM: > Some pinctrl drivers (Tegra at least) program a pin to be a GPIO in a > completely different manner than they select which function to mux out of > that pin. In order to support a single "free" pinmux_op, the driver would > need to maintain a per-pin state of requested-for-gpio vs. requested-for- > function. However, that's a lot of work when the core already has explicit > separate paths for gpio request/free and function request/free. > > So, add a gpio_disable_free op to struct pinmux_ops, and make pin_free() > call it when appropriate.
LinusW, Does this patch look good? > When doing this, I noticed that when calling pin_request(): > > !!gpio == (gpio_range != NULL) > > ... and so I collapsed those two parameters in both pin_request(), and > when adding writing the new code in pin_free(). > > Also, for pin_free(): > > !!free_func == (gpio_range != NULL) > > However, I didn't want pin_free() to know about the GPIO function naming > special case, so instead, I reworked pin_free() to always return the pin's > previously requested function, and now pinmux_free_gpio() calls > kfree(function). This is much more balanced with the allocation having > been performed in pinmux_request_gpio(). > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com> -- nvpublic _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
