Re: [patch 2.6.20-rc1 0/6] arch-neutral GPIO calls

[David Brownell]

On Wednesday 20 December 2006 3:30 pm, Håvard Skinnemoen wrote:
> On 12/20/06, David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Based on earlier discussion, I'm sending a refresh of the generic GPIO
> > patch, with several (ARM based) implementations in separate patches:
> >
> >  - Core patch, doc + <asm-arm/gpio.h> + <asm-generic/gpio.h>
> >  - OMAP implementation
> >  - AT91 implementation
> >  - PXA implementation
> >  - SA1100 implementation
> >  - S3C2410 implementation
> >
> > I know there's an AVR32 implementation too; and there's been interest
> > in this for some PPC support as well.
> 
> Great, thanks Dave. Unfortunately, I'm going to be more or less
> offline for the rest of the year, but FWIW, the AVR32 implementation
> is already in -mm as part of git-avr32.patch.

That's appropriate; after all, as a programming interface, it's
appropriate that there be multiple implementations!  Presumably
that doc is missing, but the API calls _should_ make sense on
their own.


> I guess I should check 
> and see if it's in sync with the rest.

I'd at most expect you're missing an #include <asm-generic/gpio.h>
for the cansleep variants ... which only got added because folk
agreed such spinlock-unsafe calls were needed, not because anyone
had a pressing near-term need for them.  (Unlike the spinlock-safe
functionality, which is _very_ widely implemented.)


> I'll refresh the atmel_spi patch when I get back to work in january.

Heh, maybe I can even try it out by then.  ;)

- Dave

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/