On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 05:10:33PM +0200, Raphaël Poggi wrote:
This patch is perfect :-). You just miss to check the return value in
at91_gpio_probe.
Do I have to integrate this patch in mine ? or you will apply it yourself ?
I just added the return value check, squashed the patch into your
Perfect thank you, so I just have to send one patch for the gpio clock
registration.
2014-09-04 11:26 GMT+02:00 Sascha Hauer s.ha...@pengutronix.de:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 05:10:33PM +0200, Raphaël Poggi wrote:
This patch is perfect :-). You just miss to check the return value in
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 01:07:59PM +0200, Raphaël Poggi wrote:
+static int at91_gpio_probe(struct device_d *dev)
+{
+ struct at91_gpio_chip *at91_gpio;
+ struct clk *clk;
+ int ret;
+ int alias_idx = of_alias_get_id(dev-device_node, gpio);
+
+ BUG_ON(dev-id
Sounds good, but files like at91samXXX_devices.c need gpio functions.
I think the problem is that the mach-at91/gpio.c file include a gpio
driver which not belong to be here, the right place is in the
driver/pinctrl (like my patch). But all files like
at91samXXX_devices.c are using the functions
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 01:23:14PM +0200, Raphaël Poggi wrote:
Sounds good, but files like at91samXXX_devices.c need gpio functions.
I think the problem is that the mach-at91/gpio.c file include a gpio
driver which not belong to be here, the right place is in the
driver/pinctrl (like my
This patch is perfect :-). You just miss to check the return value in
at91_gpio_probe.
Do I have to integrate this patch in mine ? or you will apply it yourself ?
2014-09-03 15:52 GMT+02:00 Sascha Hauer s.ha...@pengutronix.de:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 01:23:14PM +0200, Raphaël Poggi wrote:
This driver is based on mach-at91/gpio.c and linux pinctrl driver.
The driver contains the gpio and pinctrl parts (like in linux) because the two
parts
share some structures and logics.
Signed-off-by: Raphaël Poggi poggi.r...@gmail.com
---
drivers/pinctrl/Kconfig|6 +
