On 11/17, Timur Tabi wrote: > On 11/17/2017 11:46 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >On 11/16, Timur Tabi wrote: > >>On 11/16/17 8:43 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >>>>Most access to unavailable GPIOs can be blocked via the gpio_chip.request > >>>>function. The one exception is when gpiochip_add_data() scans all of > >> > >>>If patch 1 is applied is this statement still true? > >> > >>Nope. > >> > > > >Ok. So what's the point of this patch then? Put another way, is > >there some path that doesn't request the gpio still even with > >patch 1 applied? > > This patch is how the pinctrl-msm driver actually reports the sparse > GPIO map. > > Patch 1 prevents gpiolib from accessing GPIOs that haven't been > properly requested. > > Patch 2 adds an infrastructure for sparse GPIO maps > > Patch 3 updates pinctrl-msm to use that expose that new infrastructure > > Patch 4 updates pinctrl-qdf2xxx to work with the new feature in pinctrl-msm > Ok. What path doesn't request the gpio though? If we don't have a path that fails to request the gpio before using it then I don't see the need for this patch. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
