On 03/12/2012 10:32 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:46:03 +0100, Linus Walleij
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>
>>> Update gpio.txt based on recent discussions regarding interaction with the
>>> pinctrl subsystem.
>>>
>>> Previously, gpio_req
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:46:03 +0100, Linus Walleij
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
> > Update gpio.txt based on recent discussions regarding interaction with the
> > pinctrl subsystem.
> >
> > Previously, gpio_request() was described as explicitly not performing
Linus Walleij wrote at Tuesday, February 21, 2012 11:01 PM:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > Ignoring WARs like we're discussing, it's typically true that a given pin
> > should either be a special function or a GPIO for any given board. If
> > we do allow a pin to be o
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> Ignoring WARs like we're discussing, it's typically true that a given pin
> should either be a special function or a GPIO for any given board. If
> we do allow a pin to be owned/used by both, then how do we indicate, on
> a per-board rather
Linus Walleij wrote at Tuesday, February 21, 2012 5:40 AM:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
>
> >> It's a bit kludgy but works and makes sure the pins are only used
> >> for one thing at a time.
> >
> > No. The case which I'm thinking of is for the Assabet au
Linus Walleij wrote at Tuesday, February 21, 2012 3:42 AM:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:27:42PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> Update gpio.txt based on recent discussions regarding interaction with the
> >> pinctrl subsystem
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
>> (It'd probably need the SA1100 to be a bit more strict in using
>> gpiolib in place for the direct assignments though, else the
>> abstractions get a bit pointless anyway.)
>
> That's mostly happened through my recent set of 100
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 12:44:09PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 01:40:05PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > Of course it assumes the SA1100 being converted to use pin control,
> > I looked at it a bit and it seems simple enough since the GAFR
> > register is a sin
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 01:40:05PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> Of course it assumes the SA1100 being converted to use pin control,
> I looked at it a bit and it seems simple enough since the GAFR
> register is a single "GPIO or something else"-switch for the GPIOs.
> (It'd probably need the SA110
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
>> It's a bit kludgy but works and makes sure the pins are only used
>> for one thing at a time.
>
> No. The case which I'm thinking of is for the Assabet audio, where
> we have the following situation.
OK... (thanks for the expl
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:41:31AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> I remember this case very well and we designed for it, so it should
> be handled by pin control and GPIO thusly:
>
> Example: use pins 1,2 as I2C, then convert them to GPIO for a while
> then back again:
>
> // This call looks up a
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> Update gpio.txt based on recent discussions regarding interaction with the
> pinctrl subsystem.
>
> Previously, gpio_request() was described as explicitly not performing any
> required mux setup operations etc.
>
> Now, gpio_request() is ex
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:27:42PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> Update gpio.txt based on recent discussions regarding interaction with the
>> pinctrl subsystem.
>>
>> Previously, gpio_request() was described as explicitly not pe
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:27:42PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> Update gpio.txt based on recent discussions regarding interaction with the
> pinctrl subsystem.
>
> Previously, gpio_request() was described as explicitly not performing any
> required mux setup operations etc.
>
> Now, gpio_reques
Update gpio.txt based on recent discussions regarding interaction with the
pinctrl subsystem.
Previously, gpio_request() was described as explicitly not performing any
required mux setup operations etc.
Now, gpio_request() is explicitly as explicitly performing any required mux
setup operations w
15 matches
Mail list logo
