On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> Linus, please consider my position about this patch as neutral, and
> feel free to take it if you think it is worth.
I will meditate on this.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Alexandre Courbot gnu...@gmail.com wrote:
Linus, please consider my position about this patch as neutral, and
feel free to take it if you think it is worth.
I will meditate on this.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:00:47AM -0700, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> > On 08/28/2014 10:44 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Alexandre Courbot
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:00:47AM -0700, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
On 08/28/2014 10:44 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:20
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:00:47AM -0700, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 08/28/2014 10:44 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Alexandre Courbot
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:15 AM,
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 08/28/2014 10:44 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Alexandre Courbot
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Guenter Roeck
>>> wrote:
>>
>>
This is just one of many patches which would
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
On 08/28/2014 10:44 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Alexandre Courbot gnu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net
wrote:
This is just one of
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:00:47AM -0700, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
On 08/28/2014 10:44 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Alexandre Courbot gnu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at
On 08/28/2014 10:44 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
This is just one of many patches which would make it possible to submit
the rest, which would make use of it. What you are saying is
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> This is just one of many patches which would make it possible to submit
>> the rest, which would make use of it. What you are saying is that it won't
>> make sense to submit
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Alexandre Courbot gnu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
This is just one of many patches which would make it possible to submit
the rest, which would make use of it. What you are saying is that it
On 08/28/2014 10:44 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Alexandre Courbot gnu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
This is just one of many patches which would make it possible to submit
the rest, which would make
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 03:05:54PM -0700, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 08/11/2014 08:20 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > [ ... ]
> >
> >>
> >> Note that this doesn't change anything to the core of the argument ;
> >> we have not heard
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 03:05:54PM -0700, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
On 08/11/2014 08:20 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
[ ... ]
Note that this doesn't change anything to the core of the argument ;
we have not heard
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 08/11/2014 08:20 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> [ ... ]
>
>>
>> Note that this doesn't change anything to the core of the argument ;
>> we have not heard what Linus thinks about named GPIOs in
>> /sys/class/gpio yet, maybe he will have a
On 08/11/2014 08:20 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
[ ... ]
Note that this doesn't change anything to the core of the argument ;
we have not heard what Linus thinks about named GPIOs in
/sys/class/gpio yet, maybe he will have a different opinion...
Well, please let me know if/when you are
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 08/11/2014 08:01 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Or you could have a platform device which sole purpose is to request
the GPIOs to export and export them using
On 08/11/2014 08:01 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Or you could have a platform device which sole purpose is to request
the GPIOs to export and export them using gpio_export() and
gpio_export_link() using itself as the device parameters. All
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> Or you could have a platform device which sole purpose is to request
>> the GPIOs to export and export them using gpio_export() and
>> gpio_export_link() using itself as the device parameters. All your
>> links would then appear under the
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
On 08/11/2014 08:20 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
[ ... ]
Note that this doesn't change anything to the core of the argument ;
we have not heard what Linus thinks about named GPIOs in
/sys/class/gpio yet, maybe he will
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
Or you could have a platform device which sole purpose is to request
the GPIOs to export and export them using gpio_export() and
gpio_export_link() using itself as the device parameters. All your
links would then appear
On 08/11/2014 08:01 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
Or you could have a platform device which sole purpose is to request
the GPIOs to export and export them using gpio_export() and
gpio_export_link() using itself as the device
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
On 08/11/2014 08:01 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
Or you could have a platform device which sole purpose is to request
the GPIOs to export and
On 08/11/2014 08:20 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
[ ... ]
Note that this doesn't change anything to the core of the argument ;
we have not heard what Linus thinks about named GPIOs in
/sys/class/gpio yet, maybe he will have a different opinion...
Well, please let me know if/when you are
On 08/06/2014 11:25 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
Sorry for the delayed reply...
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
As I explained on the other thread, I still encourage you to have
these GPIOs under device nodes that give a hint of who is provided the
GPIO (effectively
Sorry for the delayed reply...
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> As I explained on the other thread, I still encourage you to have
>> these GPIOs under device nodes that give a hint of who is provided the
>> GPIO (effectively exporting the (dev, function) tuple to
Sorry for the delayed reply...
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
As I explained on the other thread, I still encourage you to have
these GPIOs under device nodes that give a hint of who is provided the
GPIO (effectively exporting the (dev, function) tuple
On 08/06/2014 11:25 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
Sorry for the delayed reply...
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
As I explained on the other thread, I still encourage you to have
these GPIOs under device nodes that give a hint of who is provided the
GPIO
On 07/25/2014 12:46 AM, Jiří Prchal wrote:
What about this modification? If is defined label, use it prioritlly, at second
use name in chip description.
@@ -842,7 +842,9 @@ int gpiod_export(struct gpio_desc *desc, bool
direction_may_change)
spin_unlock_irqrestore(_lock, flags);
What about this modification? If is defined label, use it prioritlly, at second
use name in chip description.
@@ -842,7 +842,9 @@ int gpiod_export(struct gpio_desc *desc, bool
direction_may_change)
spin_unlock_irqrestore(_lock, flags);
offset = gpio_chip_hwgpio(desc);
-
What about this modification? If is defined label, use it prioritlly, at second
use name in chip description.
@@ -842,7 +842,9 @@ int gpiod_export(struct gpio_desc *desc, bool
direction_may_change)
spin_unlock_irqrestore(gpio_lock, flags);
offset = gpio_chip_hwgpio(desc);
-
On 07/25/2014 12:46 AM, Jiří Prchal wrote:
What about this modification? If is defined label, use it prioritlly, at second
use name in chip description.
@@ -842,7 +842,9 @@ int gpiod_export(struct gpio_desc *desc, bool
direction_may_change)
spin_unlock_irqrestore(gpio_lock, flags);
On 07/23/2014 11:29 PM, Jiří Prchal wrote:
Hi,
just to append to this: is in plan some kind of exporting named GPIOs from
device tree to /sys/* or /dev/*? It would be very useful not only for me.
Because I thing what GPIO is used for what is hardware design dependent same as
for example what
On 07/23/2014 10:44 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
gpiod_export_name is similar to gpiod_export, but lets the user
determine the name used to export a gpio pin.
Currently, the pin name is determined by the chip driver with
the 'names' array
Hi,
just to append to this: is in plan some kind of exporting named GPIOs from device tree to /sys/* or /dev/*? It would be
very useful not only for me. Because I thing what GPIO is used for what is hardware design dependent same as for example
what SPI chips are used. And SPI chips are in DT.
Hi,
just to append to this: is in plan some kind of exporting named GPIOs from device tree to /sys/* or /dev/*? It would be
very useful not only for me. Because I thing what GPIO is used for what is hardware design dependent same as for example
what SPI chips are used. And SPI chips are in DT.
On 07/23/2014 10:44 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
gpiod_export_name is similar to gpiod_export, but lets the user
determine the name used to export a gpio pin.
Currently, the pin name is determined by the chip driver with
On 07/23/2014 11:29 PM, Jiří Prchal wrote:
Hi,
just to append to this: is in plan some kind of exporting named GPIOs from
device tree to /sys/* or /dev/*? It would be very useful not only for me.
Because I thing what GPIO is used for what is hardware design dependent same as
for example what
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> gpiod_export_name is similar to gpiod_export, but lets the user
> determine the name used to export a gpio pin.
>
> Currently, the pin name is determined by the chip driver with
> the 'names' array in the gpio_chip data structure, or it is
gpiod_export_name is similar to gpiod_export, but lets the user
determine the name used to export a gpio pin.
Currently, the pin name is determined by the chip driver with
the 'names' array in the gpio_chip data structure, or it is set
to gpioX, where X is the pin number, if no name is provided
gpiod_export_name is similar to gpiod_export, but lets the user
determine the name used to export a gpio pin.
Currently, the pin name is determined by the chip driver with
the 'names' array in the gpio_chip data structure, or it is set
to gpioX, where X is the pin number, if no name is provided
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
gpiod_export_name is similar to gpiod_export, but lets the user
determine the name used to export a gpio pin.
Currently, the pin name is determined by the chip driver with
the 'names' array in the gpio_chip data
42 matches
Mail list logo
