On Friday 30 August 2013 10:07:23 Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 2:05 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Thursday 29 August 2013 14:16:59 Linus Walleij wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >> > >> Don't we want to do this generic if we shall do it? > >> > >> Like for *any* GPIO chips we provide lines-initial state in the device > >> tree and some code in the gpiochip with a callback in struct gpio_chip > >> that can be called by the gpiolib core to set this up? Then we don't > >> have to reimplement this for every GPIO controller that needs it. > > > > Most GPIO chips will provide a way to read back the current state. The > > initial state only needs to be provided for write-only chips. This is > > (luckily) rather an exception, so I don't think we should implement it in > > the core, at least not yet. We can always refactor the code later if > > needed, the proposed DT binding is generic enough. > > But I think this can be useful on any GPIO chip. > > For someone deploying some system and hacking around in the > device tree to set the GPIOs up properly at boot it can be a > real useful tool. > > Or is that giving them too much rope? :-D That's the job of the boot loader, isn't it ? :-) -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
