On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 01:21:57PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:07 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > DT based systems should have no reason to use fixed GPIO numbers but some
> > drivers that work on both DT and non-DT platforms specify them anyway. In
> > order to improve
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 09:26:49AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > - if (base < 0) {
> > + if (base < 0 || of_have_populated_dt()) {
> > base = gpiochip_find_base(chip->ngpio);
> But here I worry about breaking in-t
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> From: Mark Brown
>
> DT based systems should have no reason to use fixed GPIO numbers but some
> drivers that work on both DT and non-DT platforms specify them anyway. In
> order to improve robustness in cases where drivers use gpio_is_valid()
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:07 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> From: Mark Brown
>
> DT based systems should have no reason to use fixed GPIO numbers but some
> drivers that work on both DT and non-DT platforms specify them anyway. In
> order to improve robustness in cases where drivers use gpio_is_valid()
From: Mark Brown
DT based systems should have no reason to use fixed GPIO numbers but some
drivers that work on both DT and non-DT platforms specify them anyway. In
order to improve robustness in cases where drivers use gpio_is_valid() to
check for a valid GPIO on data initialized to zero as a de
5 matches
Mail list logo
