On Thursday 13 December 2007, Scott Wood wrote:
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gpio_request);
>
> This is an API, not internals; can we stick with plain EXPORT_SYMBOL()?
The architecture independent API posted by David Brownell uses _GPL,
see http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/9/141.
I'd vote for _GPL
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 03:53:45AM +0300, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> No. This is how gpio api is working currently. With gpiolib[1], most of
> these functions will be controller-specific. IIRC, gpiolib is still in
> early development stage, so, for now, we have to limit us to one gpio
> chip controll
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 05:42:06PM +0100, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> +int cpm_init_par_io(void)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + struct device_node *np;
> + const u32 *num_ports;
> + int i;
> +
> + np = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, "par_io");
> + if (!np) {
> + ret = -ENOENT;
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 11:16:33PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
>
> > +static spinlock_t *cpm1_port_locks;
> > +static int cpm1_num_ports;
>
> Having an array of spinlocks is rather unusual and normally not necessary.
> Did you measure a sig
On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> +static spinlock_t *cpm1_port_locks;
> +static int cpm1_num_ports;
Having an array of spinlocks is rather unusual and normally not necessary.
Did you measure a significant performance impact by using a global lock
for all ports?
If not, I
This is based on [PATCH RFC 3/7] [POWERPC] CPM2: implement GPIO API.
Signed-off-by: Jochen Friedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/8xx/Kconfig |1 +
arch/powerpc/sysdev/commproc.c | 199 +++-
2 files changed, 199 insertions(+), 1 deletions
