On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 8:33 PM Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 08:20:19PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 7:05 PM Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 26.04.19 16:42, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote: > > > > On 26.04.19 15:36, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > The problem here is opaque number. This has to be chip + *relative* pin number/ > > See this: > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/55532410/how-do-linux-gpio-numbers-get-their-values/55579640#55579640 > > > > But for platform like 96Boards we don't need controller specific lookup, these > are all handled by the platform code [1] so that the users can use the standard > pinout number to access GPIOs. This is a complete mistake. There is *no* global GPIO numbers anymore in Linux. (I don't count very old legacy platforms) Read above, it applies to DT or whatever resource provider. > For instance, pin 23 on the Low Speed expansion > header is the GPIO for all 96Boards platform, so the user can access that pin > using 23 itself in the application and it will run across all supported > 96Boards. > > That's one of the reason why we prefer MRAA. > [1] https://github.com/intel-iot-devkit/mraa/blob/master/src/arm/96boards.c#L75 -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
