On 2017-05-21 22:08, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > Hi Jan, > > On 21/05/17 12:46, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Hi Sudip, >> >> why do we carry >> >> if (pcidev->vendor != PCI_VENDOR_ID_EXAR) >> return -ENODEV; >> >> in gpio_exar_probe? This effectively prevents that >> >> EXAR_DEVICE(COMMTECH, COMMTECH_4222PCIE, pbn_exar_XR17V35x), >> EXAR_DEVICE(COMMTECH, COMMTECH_4224PCIE, pbn_exar_XR17V35x), >> EXAR_DEVICE(COMMTECH, COMMTECH_4228PCIE, pbn_exar_XR17V35x), >> >> gain GPIO support. Do those devices lack access to the pins? Or can we >> drop the filter. I don't have access to those devices, just wondering >> because the code is not explaining the reason. > > Same here. I do not have these devices and have no idea if they support > the gpio pins or not. > > Adding Matt Schulte in the Cc list, maybe he can comment. > >
If we need to keep the condition, it should be moved over to 8250_exar: there is no point in creating the platform device at all then. But let's wait for Matt's comment. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA ITP SES-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
