On 05/08/2013 10:41 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote: ... > What do you think about the following modification to the pinctrl/GPIO > frameworks instead (not yet a formal patch, more a request for comment > to illustrate what I mean. If you agree, I will clean it up and submit a > proper patch after discussion). > > It adds a dt_gpiorange_xlate function to the pinctrl callbacks which > defaults to the conventional behaviour using kernel logical pin numbers. > However, pin controllers which provide more complex mechanisms can > define #gpio-range-cells and provide this callback in order to keep > Linux pin numbering inside the kernel. Can you provide an example of the DT content, and explain exactly what this patch does with it; what effect it has on the existing GPIO or pinctrl code? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
