Re: [patch 2.6.20-rc1 0/6] arch-neutral GPIO calls

From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
To: "Håvard Skinnemoen" <hskinnemoen@gmail.com>
Cc: "Linux Kernel list" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@osdl.org>,
	"Andrew Victor" <andrew@sanpeople.com>,
	"Bill Gatliff" <bgat@billgatliff.com>,
	"Haavard Skinnemoen" <hskinnemoen@atmel.com>,
	jamey.hicks@hp.com, "Kevin Hilman" <khilman@mvista.com>,
	"Nicolas Pitre" <nico@cam.org>,
	"Russell King" <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	"Tony Lindgren" <tony@atomide.com>,
	"pHilipp Zabel" <philipp.zabel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.20-rc1 0/6] arch-neutral GPIO calls
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:46:57 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200612201546.58718.david-b@pacbell.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1defaf580612201530x4708cc5cs37801bf7d00a598b@mail.gmail.com>

On Wednesday 20 December 2006 3:30 pm, Håvard Skinnemoen wrote:
> On 12/20/06, David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Based on earlier discussion, I'm sending a refresh of the generic GPIO
> > patch, with several (ARM based) implementations in separate patches:
> >
> >  - Core patch, doc + <asm-arm/gpio.h> + <asm-generic/gpio.h>
> >  - OMAP implementation
> >  - AT91 implementation
> >  - PXA implementation
> >  - SA1100 implementation
> >  - S3C2410 implementation
> >
> > I know there's an AVR32 implementation too; and there's been interest
> > in this for some PPC support as well.
> 
> Great, thanks Dave. Unfortunately, I'm going to be more or less
> offline for the rest of the year, but FWIW, the AVR32 implementation
> is already in -mm as part of git-avr32.patch.

That's appropriate; after all, as a programming interface, it's
appropriate that there be multiple implementations!  Presumably
that doc is missing, but the API calls _should_ make sense on
their own.

> I guess I should check 
> and see if it's in sync with the rest.

I'd at most expect you're missing an #include <asm-generic/gpio.h>
for the cansleep variants ... which only got added because folk
agreed such spinlock-unsafe calls were needed, not because anyone
had a pressing near-term need for them.  (Unlike the spinlock-safe
functionality, which is _very_ widely implemented.)

> I'll refresh the atmel_spi patch when I get back to work in january.

Heh, maybe I can even try it out by then.  ;)

- Dave