[PATCH] Correct bad gpio naming

[PATCH] Correct bad gpio naming

[Roland Stigge]

One of the GPIO names in drivers/gpio/gpio-lpc32xx.c
was bad. Renaming gpi000 -> gpio00

Signed-off-by: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-lpc32xx.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-lpc32xx.c
index 5b69480..ddfacc5 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-lpc32xx.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-lpc32xx.c
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ static const char *gpio_p2_names[LPC32XX_GPIO_P2_MAX] = {
 };
  static const char *gpio_p3_names[LPC32XX_GPIO_P3_MAX] = {
-	"gpi000", "gpio01", "gpio02", "gpio03",
+	"gpio00", "gpio01", "gpio02", "gpio03",
 	"gpio04", "gpio05"
 };

Re: [PATCH] Correct bad gpio naming

[Grant Likely]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 06:57:57PM +0100, Roland Stigge wrote:
> One of the GPIO names in drivers/gpio/gpio-lpc32xx.c
> was bad. Renaming gpi000 -> gpio00
> 
> Signed-off-by: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>

Applied.  Careful though, this patch was corrupt (missing carriage
return before 'static' and had to be applied by hand.

g.

> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-lpc32xx.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-lpc32xx.c
> index 5b69480..ddfacc5 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-lpc32xx.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-lpc32xx.c
> @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ static const char *gpio_p2_names[LPC32XX_GPIO_P2_MAX] = {
>  };
>   static const char *gpio_p3_names[LPC32XX_GPIO_P3_MAX] = {
> -	"gpi000", "gpio01", "gpio02", "gpio03",
> +	"gpio00", "gpio01", "gpio02", "gpio03",
>  	"gpio04", "gpio05"
>  };
> 

Re: [PATCH] Correct bad gpio naming

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 750 bytes --]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 06:57:57PM +0100, Roland Stigge wrote:
> One of the GPIO names in drivers/gpio/gpio-lpc32xx.c
> was bad. Renaming gpi000 -> gpio00
> 
> Signed-off-by: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>

Since you are modifying LPC32xx :) Which kernel version do you run? I
was trying to get a board up with 3.0 (not booting) and 3.3-rc1 (build
breakage). I even thought about removing that mach, since vital parts
seem to be missing (Net, NAND) or broken. So, I am interested if there
are still users.

CCing Kevin Wells, too: Any plans from NXP?

Thanks,

   Wolfram

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] Correct bad gpio naming

[Roland Stigge]

Hi,

On 01/24/2012 04:59 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 06:57:57PM +0100, Roland Stigge wrote:
>> One of the GPIO names in drivers/gpio/gpio-lpc32xx.c was bad.
>> Renaming gpi000 -> gpio00
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>
> 
> Since you are modifying LPC32xx :) Which kernel version do you run?
> I was trying to get a board up with 3.0 (not booting) and 3.3-rc1
> (build breakage). I even thought about removing that mach, since
> vital parts seem to be missing (Net, NAND) or broken. So, I am
> interested if there are still users.

I'm actively maintaining an LPC32xx machine line (WORK Microwave GmbH
devices) at http://git.antcom.de/ - feel free to merge from there.

For me, it works fine with Linux 3.2.0.

The repo includes some additional features like NAND (esp. MLC
controller, while NXP implemented an SLC driver), High Speed UARTs and
ADC. Some of those are not yet integrated mainline, but I'm willing to
help here. Looks like I will maintain it anyway for the next few years.

Expect the first one of the drivers to be submitted soon, I will do
them one by one.

Thanks for keeping LPC32xx :-)

Roland

LPC32xx status (Re: [PATCH] Correct bad gpio naming)

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1134 bytes --]


> > Since you are modifying LPC32xx :) Which kernel version do you run?
> > I was trying to get a board up with 3.0 (not booting) and 3.3-rc1
> > (build breakage). I even thought about removing that mach, since
> > vital parts seem to be missing (Net, NAND) or broken. So, I am
> > interested if there are still users.
> 
> I'm actively maintaining an LPC32xx machine line (WORK Microwave GmbH
> devices) at http://git.antcom.de/ - feel free to merge from there.

Cool, best answer I could get \o/

> Expect the first one of the drivers to be submitted soon, I will do
> them one by one.

I think the first step should be adding a generic defconfig and make sure this
builds and boots (I think I have a phy3250 somewhere, so I could test). After
that new drivers would make sense. IIRC clock.c was pretty broken, we needed
hacks to get USB working with a 2.6.35. I also see that your tree modifies it.

Kevin: Are you with us?

Regards,

   Wolfram

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: LPC32xx status (Re: [PATCH] Correct bad gpio naming)

[Roland Stigge]

On 24/01/12 20:25, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> Expect the first one of the drivers to be submitted soon, I will
>> do them one by one.
> 
> I think the first step should be adding a generic defconfig and
> make sure this builds and boots (I think I have a phy3250
> somewhere, so I could test). After that new drivers would make
> sense. IIRC clock.c was pretty broken, we needed hacks to get USB
> working with a 2.6.35. I also see that your tree modifies it.

I see that you are already at it ;-) - for the others: On the server
"git.antcom.de", I meant repository "linux-2.6.git", branch "work92105".

Unfortunately, I currently don't have a phy3250, but can check
tomorrow with colleagues.

I guess the work92105_defconfig is only useful once the drivers
currently missing in mainline are merged. Or is there an arm specific
tree I should update from?

Thanks in advance!

Roland

Re: LPC32xx status (Re: [PATCH] Correct bad gpio naming)

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 792 bytes --]


> Unfortunately, I currently don't have a phy3250, but can check
> tomorrow with colleagues.

Shouldn't matter that much, or? Once the core support is back and works for
your board, others could test with their boards.

> I guess the work92105_defconfig is only useful once the drivers
> currently missing in mainline are merged. Or is there an arm specific
> tree I should update from?

You can keep the work92105_defconfig in your tree, but we'd need to introduce a
lpc32xx_defconfig. That should start with a minimal (but working) config and
can be extended once the drivers are in place.

Regards,

   Wolfram

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]