On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:16:59AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> 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?Huh, I am surprised as well. Will investigate tomorrow. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
