Thanks for the feedback Simon. On 04/09/2016 11:34 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > On 5 April 2016 at 16:09, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: >> On 04/01/2016 09:47 AM, Eric Nelson wrote: >>> >>> With the addition of GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW parsing in gpio-uclass, it is >>> no longer necessary for the tegra-specific xlate function to do this. >> >> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/tegra_gpio.c b/drivers/gpio/tegra_gpio.c >> >> >>> @@ -246,7 +246,6 @@ static int tegra_gpio_xlate(struct udevice *dev, >>> struct gpio_desc *desc, >>> if (ret) >>> return ret; >>> desc->offset = gpio % TEGRA_GPIOS_PER_PORT; >>> - desc->flags = args->args[1] & GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW ? GPIOD_ACTIVE_LOW : >>> 0; >> >> >> I expect that after that, you can also remove the following at the top of >> the file: >> >> #include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h> >> >> I expect that's true of other GPIO drivers too. > > But I don't think we want this patch for Tegra since we need to keep > the xlate() method, and with your suggested approach earlier, we won't > call the default xlate() method in the uclass for Tegra. >
Based on your comments and Stephens, I can re-work this to have a __maybe_unused xlate function for the common case of handling offset+active low, but I think the handling of offset inside of gpio_find_and_xlate() should be removed at the same time. It seems weird to have processing for one argument in the common code when it may not be used (as is the case with tegra). I see that you've sent some updates, so I'm not sure whether I should send an update on top of your patch set or without it. Regards, Eric _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
