Hello Andreas,
Am 30.10.2013 19:59, schrieb Andreas Bießmann:
Hi Jens,
On 30.10.13 18:19, Jens Scharsig wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 11:39, schrieb Andreas Bießmann:
Hi Bo,
+Jens, he did the rewrite of the at91 gpio driver.
I think this is a job for gpio_is_valid() then. How is this case handle
Hi Jens,
On 30.10.13 18:19, Jens Scharsig wrote:
> Am 30.10.2013 11:39, schrieb Andreas Bießmann:
>> Hi Bo,
>>
>> +Jens, he did the rewrite of the at91 gpio driver.
>>
>
>>
>> I think this is a job for gpio_is_valid() then. How is this case handled
>> in kernel?
>>
>> Here are a few things to dis
Am 30.10.2013 11:39, schrieb Andreas Bießmann:
> Hi Bo,
>
> +Jens, he did the rewrite of the at91 gpio driver.
>
>
> I think this is a job for gpio_is_valid() then. How is this case handled
> in kernel?
>
> Here are a few things to discuss. First of all I'd like to get some
> insights why the
Hi Bo,
+Jens, he did the rewrite of the at91 gpio driver.
On 10/30/2013 10:56 AM, Bo Shen wrote:
> On 10/29/2013 20:53, Andreas Bießmann wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Bießmann
>> ---
>> arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/gpio.h | 34
>> -
>> 1 file changed, 29
Hi Andreas,
On 10/29/2013 20:53, Andreas Bießmann wrote:
Signed-off-by: Andreas Bießmann
---
arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/gpio.h | 34 -
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/gpio.h
b/arch/arm/includ
5 matches
Mail list logo