On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Mark Brown
wrote:
> Since users must be explicitly provided with a GPIO number in order to
> request one the overwhelmingly common case for failing to request will
> be that the required GPIO driver has not yet registered and we should
> therefore defer until it ha
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 10:54:41PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> I'm fine with this patch, but the patch that adds the twizzling of the
> dpm_list when probing needs some tweaking, and this patch must be
> applied after that one. I'll go and reply to that patch now (and cc
> you if you're not alre
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Mark Brown
> wrote:
>
>> Since users must be explicitly provided with a GPIO number in order to
>> request one the overwhelmingly common case for failing to request will
>> be that the required GPIO driver has
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Mark Brown
wrote:
> Since users must be explicitly provided with a GPIO number in order to
> request one the overwhelmingly common case for failing to request will
> be that the required GPIO driver has not yet registered and we should
> therefore defer until it ha
Since users must be explicitly provided with a GPIO number in order to
request one the overwhelmingly common case for failing to request will
be that the required GPIO driver has not yet registered and we should
therefore defer until it has registered.
In order to avoid having to code this logic i
5 matches
Mail list logo