Re: [patch/rfc 1/4] GPIO implementation framework

[David Brownell]

On Tuesday 13 November 2007, David Brownell wrote:
> So the point of these is to make it easier for platforms
> (or even just boards) to make sure the GPIO number space
> is densely packed, rather than loosely so?  Paying about
> 2KBytes for that privilege.  (Assuming a 32 bit system
> with 256 GPIOs.)
> 
> I could see that being a reasonable tradeoff.  I wouldn't
> have started there myself, but you know how that goes!
> 
> Does anyone else have any comments on that issue?

Nobody else seems to have any comments on Eric's series
of patches to add a gpio_desc layer ... whereas, I was
looking at updating one platform, and got annoyed at some
stuff that would have been non-issues with them in place!


Eric, would you feel like rolling an all-in-one patch against
the gpiolib support from 2.6.24-rc3-mm?  Including updated
versions of your patches:

 - [PATCH 2/5] define gpio_chip.requested_str
	(renaming it as "label" to match its usage)
 - [PATCH 3/5] use a per GPIO "struct gpio_desc"
	(but without that needless list; for debug,
	just scan the gpio_desc list for the next
	non-null chip)
 - [PATCH] move per GPIO "is_out" to "struct gpio_desc"
	(i.e. patch 4/5)
 - [PATCH 5/5] move per GPIO "requested" to "struct gpio_desc"
	(and "label" too)

along with removing the ARCH_GPIOS_PER_CHIP symbol, and
reducing ARCH_NR_GPIOS to a value which will waste less
space by default?  (Like maybe 256.)

I think an all-in-one patch will be easier to review
and agree on including (or not).

- 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/