Jonathan Cameron wrote at Friday, September 02, 2011 2:48 AM: > On 09/01/11 17:52, Stephen Warren wrote: > > Some devices use a single pin as both an IRQ and a GPIO. In that case, > > irq_gpio is the GPIO ID for that pin. Not all drivers use this feature. > > Where they do, and the use of this feature is optional, and the system > > wishes to disable this feature, this field must be explicitly set to a > > defined invalid GPIO ID, such as -1. > > Why make it specifically an irq related gpio? Might as well just call it > gpio then it can be used for cases where it never corresponds to an irq > such as capture trigger pins. > > Otherwise I'd be happy to see this go in. The idea was specifically to replace the need to call irq_to_gpio(i2c->irq). If we did just rename it plain "gpio" and allow it to be used for anything, then that does indeed start looking more like device-specific platform data. I guess it sounds like consensus is to go that way. It does seem like that will end up creating a bunch more device-specific platform-data files though. I wonder if adding IORESOURCE_GPIO would make sense so this could be handled in a generic way without custom platform data types? -- nvpublic _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
