* Grant Likely [111024 12:31]:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 09:48:19AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Grant Likely
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 09:26:38AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > (...)
> > >> I was more thinking along the lines of one device per
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:17:19AM +0200, Grant Likely wrote:
> I've got no issue with a debugfs interface, although it would probably
> a good idea to put a big scary warning into klog when userspace starts
> manipulating pinctrl setting. Maybe should taint the kernel too.
Yes, we really should
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:05:32AM +0200, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Grant Likely [111024 12:31]:
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 09:48:19AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Grant Likely
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 09:26:38AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrot
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> but the question here is about pinctrl. does userspace really need to
> manipulate the pinmapping ? if we agree on that, then the question is
> on the userspace interface.
>
> assuming we want this, i can't see the performance argument b
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 09:48:19AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Grant Likely
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 09:26:38AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> (...)
> >> I was more thinking along the lines of one device per GPIO controller,
> >> then you ioctl() to a
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 03:26, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 16:35, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 12:39:21PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
2011/9/30 Grant Likely:
> I'm not convinced that the sysfs a
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 03:48, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 09:26:38AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> (...)
>>> I was more thinking along the lines of one device per GPIO controller,
>>> then you ioctl() to ask /dev/gpio0 how
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 09:26:38AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
(...)
>> I was more thinking along the lines of one device per GPIO controller,
>> then you ioctl() to ask /dev/gpio0 how many pins it has or so.
>
> And there is also the question
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 09:26:38AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 16:35, Grant Likely wrote:
> >> On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 12:39:21PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >>> 2011/9/30 Grant Likely:
> >>> > I'm not convinced
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 16:35, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 12:39:21PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> 2011/9/30 Grant Likely:
>>> > I'm not convinced that the sysfs approach is
>>> > actually the right interface here (I'm c
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 16:35, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 12:39:21PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> 2011/9/30 Grant Likely:
>> > I'm not convinced that the sysfs approach is
>> > actually the right interface here (I'm certainly not a fan of the gpio
>> > sysfs i/f), and I'd rather
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 12:39:21PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 2011/9/30 Grant Likely :
>
> > I'm not convinced that the sysfs approach is
> > actually the right interface here (I'm certainly not a fan of the gpio
> > sysfs i/f), and I'd rather not be putting in unneeded stuff until the
> > user
2011/9/30 Grant Likely :
> I'm not convinced that the sysfs approach is
> actually the right interface here (I'm certainly not a fan of the gpio
> sysfs i/f), and I'd rather not be putting in unneeded stuff until the
> userspace i/f is hammered out.
Actually, thinking about it I cannot see what w
Linus Walleij wrote at Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:04 AM:
> This creates a subsystem for handling of pin control devices.
> These are devices that control different aspects of package
> pins.
I still haven't had a chance to look through the .c files, just the docs
and headers, but they look go
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> [Me]
>> That is not the reason it's there actually, what we have
>> discussed on the mailing list is getting sysfs entries for the same
>> reason gpiolib registers a class: handle pin control from userspace,
>>(...)
>
> Sure, but you don't ne
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Grant Likely
> wrote:
>
>> Comments below, some a bit nitpicky, but overall I think it looks
>> good. I haven't dug into it nearly deeply enough though. :-(
>
> Hopefully we can patch the remaining bugs as
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> Comments below, some a bit nitpicky, but overall I think it looks
> good. I haven't dug into it nearly deeply enough though. :-(
Hopefully we can patch the remaining bugs as we go along :-)
>> +/**
>> + * Looks up a pin control device ma
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 02:03:39PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> From: Linus Walleij
>
> This creates a subsystem for handling of pin control devices.
> These are devices that control different aspects of package
> pins.
Comments below, some a bit nitpicky, but overall I think it looks
good. I
18 matches
Mail list logo
