Re: [PATCH 02/10] mach-u300: rewrite gpio driver, move todrivers/gpio
From: Shawn Guo
Date: Thu May 19 2011 - 23:13:56 EST
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 03:30:36PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2011, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 09:56:32PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 02:21:27PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I start working on moving mxs gpio (arch/arm/mach-mxs/gpio.c) into
> > > > > driver/gpio, and I see the possibility to go a different approach
> > > > > from U300 one posted here.
> > > >
> > > > I've tried to figure out what relation the mail has to the U300 driver
> > > > but cannot find any, more than that it's moving a driver... Please
> > > > start a new mail thread.
> > > >
> > > I will post mxs-gpio driver once I get it done. Then please review
> > > the code and see the difference between mxs-gpio and u300-gpio,
> > > though these hardwares have something in common.
> > I'm pretty sure they have something in common and even more that *all*
> > gpio drivers have something in common. I wonder if it really makes sense
> > to move the gpio driver to drivers/gpio without creating a common
> > mmio_gpio_chip beforehand. This can't be very hard.
> I do think that performing the move first will make a subsequent
> conversion easier. And since a move is a no-op from a functional point
> of view, it is the safest thing to do first.
That's also what I heard on UDS week. Move stuff into driver/gpio
first, then try to find the pattern in those drivers and come up with
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/