On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 04:40:16PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxx> wrote: >> > Again, I'm not really worried about this driver, but the ACPI tables. How >> > does the difference show there? >> >> Same way. You will have common numbering over the chip [0, 9]. It will >> be just an abstraction inside the driver. > > Oh, in that case that should be a non-issue. >> Above states the opposite, so, it's clear to me that abstraction of 2 >> GPIO chips over 1 can be utilized here. > > Sounds fine to me, taken that this does not add complications to ACPI > tables. They just need to share the same ACPI_HANDLE (it might require to do this in generic way in gpiolib) and have a continuous numbering (easy to achieve with carefully chosen bases). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
