On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 10:19:47AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Benoit Parrot wrote:
>
> > + line_b: line_b {
> > + line_b {
> > + gpi
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Benoit Parrot wrote:
> + line_b: line_b {
> + line_b {
> + gpios = <6 0>;
> + output-low;
> +
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Benoit Parrot wrote:
Sorry for slow replies...
> Linus Walleij wrote on Mon [2014-Nov-03 10:59:53
> +0100]:
>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Benoit Parrot wrote:
>>
>> > qe_pio_a: gpio-controller@1400 {
>> > @@ -110,6 +130,19 @@ Example of two SOC G
Linus,
Thanks for the feedback.
To summarize the hog feature should be local to gpiolib-of.c, correct?
I also also need some clarifications, see below.
Linus Walleij wrote on Mon [2014-Nov-03 10:59:53
+0100]:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Benoit Parrot wrote:
>
> > qe_pio_a:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Benoit Parrot wrote:
> Based on Boris Brezillion work this is a reworked patch
> of his initial GPIO hogging mechanism.
> This patch provides a way to initally configure specific GPIO
> when the gpio controller is probe.
>
> The actual DT scanning to collect the
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
> 3) I’m not very fond of having this being part of the gpio controller. This
> configuration conceptually has little to do with the gpio controller per se,
> it is more of a board specific thing. Why not come up with a gpio-hog driver
>
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 06:09:12PM -0500, Benoit Parrot wrote:
> Maxime Ripard wrote on Wed [2014-Oct-29
> 17:47:46 +0100]:
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:41:22AM -0500, Benoit Parrot wrote:
> > > Maxime Ripard wrote on Wed
> > > [2014-Oct-29 11:45:59 +0100]:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:42 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
> Hi Benoit,
>
>> On Oct 29, 2014, at 18:34 , Benoit Parrot wrote:
>>
>> Pantelis,
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>
>> Pantelis Antoniou wrote on Wed [2014-Oct-29
>> 10:53:44 +0200]:
>>> Hi Benoit,
>>>
On Oct 21, 2014, at 23:09 , B
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Benoit Parrot wrote:
>> > +
>> > if (status)
>> > goto fail;
>> >
>> > @@ -1742,6 +1757,72 @@ struct gpio_desc *__must_check
>> > __gpiod_get_index_optional(struct device *dev,
>> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__gpiod_get_index_optional);
>> >
>> >
Maxime Ripard wrote on Wed [2014-Oct-29
17:47:46 +0100]:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:41:22AM -0500, Benoit Parrot wrote:
> > Maxime Ripard wrote on Wed [2014-Oct-29
> > 11:45:59 +0100]:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:09:58PM -0500, Benoit Parrot wrote:
> > > > Based on Boris
Pantelis Antoniou wrote on Wed [2014-Oct-29
18:42:48 +0200]:
> Hi Benoit,
>
> > On Oct 29, 2014, at 18:34 , Benoit Parrot wrote:
> >
> > Pantelis,
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback.
> >
> > Pantelis Antoniou wrote on Wed [2014-Oct-29
> > 10:53:44 +0200]:
> >> Hi Benoit,
> >>
> >>> On Oct 21
Hi Benoit,
> On Oct 29, 2014, at 18:34 , Benoit Parrot wrote:
>
> Pantelis,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Pantelis Antoniou wrote on Wed [2014-Oct-29
> 10:53:44 +0200]:
>> Hi Benoit,
>>
>>> On Oct 21, 2014, at 23:09 , Benoit Parrot wrote:
>>>
>>> Based on Boris Brezillion work this is
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:41:22AM -0500, Benoit Parrot wrote:
> Maxime Ripard wrote on Wed [2014-Oct-29
> 11:45:59 +0100]:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:09:58PM -0500, Benoit Parrot wrote:
> > > Based on Boris Brezillion work this is a reworked patch
> > > of his initial GPIO hoggi
Maxime Ripard wrote on Wed [2014-Oct-29
11:45:59 +0100]:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:09:58PM -0500, Benoit Parrot wrote:
> > Based on Boris Brezillion work this is a reworked patch
> > of his initial GPIO hogging mechanism.
> > This patch provides a way to initally configure specific GP
Pantelis,
Thanks for the feedback.
Pantelis Antoniou wrote on Wed [2014-Oct-29
10:53:44 +0200]:
> Hi Benoit,
>
> > On Oct 21, 2014, at 23:09 , Benoit Parrot wrote:
> >
> > Based on Boris Brezillion work this is a reworked patch
> > of his initial GPIO hogging mechanism.
> > This patch provid
Alexandre,
Thanks for the feedback.
Alexandre Courbot wrote on Wed [2014-Oct-29 16:09:59 +0900]:
> Sorry for the delay in reviewing. Adding Jiri and Pantelis who might
> want to extend over this patch and thus will likely have interesting
> comments to make.
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:09 AM,
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:09:58PM -0500, Benoit Parrot wrote:
> Based on Boris Brezillion work this is a reworked patch
> of his initial GPIO hogging mechanism.
> This patch provides a way to initally configure specific GPIO
> when the gpio controller is probe.
>
> The actual DT scanning to
Hi Benoit,
> On Oct 21, 2014, at 23:09 , Benoit Parrot wrote:
>
> Based on Boris Brezillion work this is a reworked patch
> of his initial GPIO hogging mechanism.
> This patch provides a way to initally configure specific GPIO
> when the gpio controller is probe.
>
> The actual DT scanning to c
Sorry for the delay in reviewing. Adding Jiri and Pantelis who might
want to extend over this patch and thus will likely have interesting
comments to make.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Benoit Parrot wrote:
> Based on Boris Brezillion work this is a reworked patch
> of his initial GPIO hogging
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Benoit Parrot wrote:
> I do have a modified version of Boris' first patch addressing your original
> comments which I am planning to submit if you it is still a valid idea.
Please do whatever we end up merging or not, sharing code is always
a good idea. Don't forg
Linus,
Sorry about the resend, but i just realized i should have copied you
directly on the follow-up.
Please let me know what you think.
I do have a modified version of Boris' first patch addressing your original
comments which I am planning to submit if you it is still a valid idea.
Regards,
Ben Gamari writes:
> Hi Boris,
>
> I'm just returning to this now.
>
>
> Greg Kroah-Hartman writes:
>
>> I don't understand what makes GPIO's "special" enough to get included in
>> the driver core like this, and called for each and every device that is
>> added to the system.
>>
> I'm also a bit
Hi Boris,
I'm just returning to this now.
Greg Kroah-Hartman writes:
> I don't understand what makes GPIO's "special" enough to get included in
> the driver core like this, and called for each and every device that is
> added to the system.
>
I'm also a bit confused why GPIOs ended up in the d
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:18 AM, boris brezillon
wrote:
> Anyway, do you want me to rework the gpio hog as described below ?
If you feel you have time, drive and a proper usecase for testing it,
sure. I just want it to be driven my someone who *really* needs
that feature.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
-
On 08/01/2014 10:37, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Boris BREZILLON
wrote:
GPIO hogging is a way to request and configure specific GPIO without
explicitly requesting it in the device driver.
The request and configuration procedure is handled in the core device
driver co
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:48 AM, boris brezillon
wrote:
> On 19/12/2013 19:22, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> that's quite a weird argument from Linus W, considering you _do_ have a
>> discrete mux on the board.
>
>> We have quite a few of such "crazy" scenarios here at TI and we were
>> going to send a
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Boris BREZILLON
wrote:
> GPIO hogging is a way to request and configure specific GPIO without
> explicitly requesting it in the device driver.
>
> The request and configuration procedure is handled in the core device
> driver code before the driver probe function
Hello,
On 19/12/2013 19:22, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 06:18:40PM +0100, boris brezillon wrote:
Hello Felipe,
On 19/12/2013 17:47, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 08:41:09AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 03:34:31PM +0100, Boris BREZILLO
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 06:18:40PM +0100, boris brezillon wrote:
> Hello Felipe,
>
> On 19/12/2013 17:47, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 08:41:09AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >>On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 03:34:31PM +0100, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
> >>>GPIO hogging is a way to re
Hello Greg,
On 19/12/2013 17:41, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 03:34:31PM +0100, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
GPIO hogging is a way to request and configure specific GPIO without
explicitly requesting it in the device driver.
The request and configuration procedure is handled in
Hello Felipe,
On 19/12/2013 17:47, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 08:41:09AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 03:34:31PM +0100, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
GPIO hogging is a way to request and configure specific GPIO without
explicitly requesting it in the devic
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 08:41:09AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 03:34:31PM +0100, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
> > GPIO hogging is a way to request and configure specific GPIO without
> > explicitly requesting it in the device driver.
> >
> > The request and configuration p
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 03:34:31PM +0100, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
> GPIO hogging is a way to request and configure specific GPIO without
> explicitly requesting it in the device driver.
>
> The request and configuration procedure is handled in the core device
> driver code before the driver probe f
33 matches
Mail list logo
