From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] gpiolib-of: Support 'reserved-gpio-ranges' property Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 13:49:56 -0800 Message-ID: <151994099669.240031.102662015980326125@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> References: <20180126011400.2191-1-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <20180126011400.2191-3-sboyd@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Timur Tabi , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Bjorn Andersson , Grant Likely , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko , Linux ARM List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Quoting Linus Walleij (2018-02-07 05:34:19) > Hi Stephen, > > nice work! > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:13 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > For now, we plumb this into the gpiochip irq APIs so that > > GPIO/pinctrl drivers can use the gpiochip_irqchip_irq_valid() to > > test validity of GPIOs. > > But is that the right thing to do, given that we just took the > trouble to define a DT binding that is explicitly about > any GPIO, not just IRQ capable ones? > > I am worries that the *irq* infix etc on these functions > will be a bit confusing. > > Is it a lot of work to make it just generic and maybe bake it > into the gpio_chip so as to refuse already in > gpiod_request_commit() in gpiolib already? I don't think that it will be too much work to tweak the code to treat these as gpios instead of irq lines. It may end up duplicating a bit of code that the irq line stuff is already doing, but I'll take a stab at it and see how bad it comes out.