On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:12:48AM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Add a 5121-custom reject if an input-only pin is requested to be output
> (see 18.3.1.1 in the refman). Also, rewrite mach-specific quirk setup to
> consume less lines which scales better.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <w.s...@pengutronix.de>
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpio-mpc8xxx.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-mpc8xxx.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-mpc8xxx.c
> index ec3fcf0..25dc736 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-mpc8xxx.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-mpc8xxx.c
> @@ -115,6 +115,14 @@ static int mpc8xxx_gpio_dir_in(struct gpio_chip *gc,
> unsigned int gpio)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int mpc5121_gpio_dir_out(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned int gpio, int
> val)
> +{
> + /* GPIO 28..31 are input only on MPC5121 */
> + if (gpio >= 28)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + return mpc8xxx_gpio_dir_out(gc, gpio, val);
> +}
> static int mpc8xxx_gpio_dir_out(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned int gpio, int
> val)
This actually caused a build failure. mpc8xxx_gpio_dir_out() was used before
it was declared. I moved the symbol to immediately below and applied anyway,
but how did it compile for you? Should I drop this patch until you retest?
g.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
