Re: [PATCH v2] gpiolib: add hogs support for machine code

2018-05-02 Thread Linus Walleij
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > 2018-04-26 14:07 GMT+02:00 Linus Walleij : >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:30 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >> >>> Board files constitute a significant part of the users of the legacy >>> GPIO framework. In many cases they only export a

Re: [PATCH v2] gpiolib: add hogs support for machine code

2018-04-26 Thread Bartosz Golaszewski
2018-04-26 14:07 GMT+02:00 Linus Walleij : > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:30 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > >> Board files constitute a significant part of the users of the legacy >> GPIO framework. In many cases they only export a line and set its >> desired value. We could use GPIO hogs for that

Re: [PATCH v2] gpiolib: add hogs support for machine code

2018-04-26 Thread Linus Walleij
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:00 PM, Christian Lamparter wrote: > The problem is that unlike native gpio-controllers, pinctrls need > to have a "pin/gpio range" defined before any gpio-hogs can be added. Indeed. But the primary use case (correct me if I am wrong Bartosz) is to clean up old boardfil

Re: [PATCH v2] gpiolib: add hogs support for machine code

2018-04-26 Thread Linus Walleij
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:30 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > Board files constitute a significant part of the users of the legacy > GPIO framework. In many cases they only export a line and set its > desired value. We could use GPIO hogs for that like we do for DT and > ACPI but there's no supp

Re: [PATCH v2] gpiolib: add hogs support for machine code

2018-04-12 Thread Christian Lamparter
On Dienstag, 10. April 2018 22:30:28 CEST Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > Board files constitute a significant part of the users of the legacy > GPIO framework. In many cases they only export a line and set its > desired value. We could use GPIO hogs for that like we do for DT and > ACPI but there's n