RE: gpio: ep93xx: remove unused inline function

[H Hartley Sweeten]

On Monday, August 08, 2011 4:54 PM, Ryan Mallon wrote:
> On 09/08/11 09:18, H Hartley Sweeten wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: H Hartley Sweeten<hsweeten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Ryan Mallon<rmallon@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Grant Likely<grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-ep93xx.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-ep93xx.c
>> index 468b27d..e0ad8e0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-ep93xx.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-ep93xx.c
>> @@ -62,11 +62,6 @@ static void ep93xx_gpio_update_int_params(unsigned port)
>>   		EP93XX_GPIO_REG(int_en_register_offset[port]));
>>   }
>>
>> -static inline void ep93xx_gpio_int_mask(unsigned line)
>> -{
>> -	gpio_int_unmasked[line>>  3]&= ~(1<<  (line&  7));
>> -}
>> -
>>   static void ep93xx_gpio_int_debounce(unsigned int irq, bool enable)
>>   {
>>   	int line = irq_to_gpio(irq);
>
> Yup. Looks like it got factored directly into ep93xx_gpio_irq_mask.
>
> Acked-by: Ryan Mallon <rmallon@xxxxxxxxx>

Thanks.

> Note that we have a lot of line >> 3 and (1 << (line & 7)) scattered 
> through this file. We could do something like this (completely untested):

Actually, I'm trying to figure out a way to use the generic-chip stuff to
handle the gpio interrupts.  I just haven't worked it out yet.

There seems to be a push to deprecate irq_to_gpio() so something will
eventually have to be done...

Regards,
Hartley
èº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËlzwm…ébëæìr¸›zX§»®w¥Š{ayºÊÚë,j­¢f£¢·hš‹àz¹®w¥¢¸¢·¦j:+v‰¨ŠwèjØm¶Ÿÿ¾«‘êçzZ+ƒùšŽŠÝj"ú!¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^¶m§ÿðÃnÆàþY&—