On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:07:59 +0800
"Wu, Bryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > static struct i2c_gpio_platform_data i2c_gpio_data = {
> > .sda_pin = GPIO_PIN_FOO,
> > .scl_pin = GPIO_PIN_BAR,
> > };
>
> Is this usage right, because 3 flags are added to this structure as
> below:
>
> struct i2c_gpio_platform_data {
> unsigned int sda_pin;
> unsigned int scl_pin;
> unsigned int sda_is_open_drain:1;
> unsigned int scl_is_open_drain:1;
> unsigned int scl_is_output_only:1;
> };
Well, it is the simplest possible example. The last 3 fields will be 0,
which is a valid configuration.
> Thanks a lot, I will drop our GPIO based I2C driver and try this one on
> our platform.
I hope it works for you.
> > + if (!pdata->scl_is_output_only)
> > + bit_data->getscl = i2c_gpio_getscl,
> > +
> > + bit_data->getsda = i2c_gpio_getsda,
> > + bit_data->udelay = 5, /* 100 kHz */
> > + bit_data->timeout = HZ / 10, /* 100 ms */
>
> Can we add these udelay/timeout to struct i2c_gpio_platform_data? And
> let customer to choose these according their specific requirement. We
> use Kconfig to do this, but Jean and David don't like the idea, -:(
Yeah, they need to be a bit more configurable than they currently are.
And I think it makes sense to pass them from the board setup code, since
this is where things depending on board-specific details (signal quality
issues, pullup resistor values, etc.) are supposed to go.
Haavard
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
