On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 08:56:20AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > Stephen, > > Can you please fix your e-mail client / system / whatever so that your > patch series are no longer sent duplicated? > > On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 16:04:27 -0600, 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. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > v3: Also add the field to i2c_board_info, and copy the field from > > i2c_board_info to i2c_client upon instantiation > > I don't get the idea. The i2c core doesn't make any use of the field, > and that field will only be used by a few drivers amongst the 420+ > i2c drivers in the tree. This looks like a waste of memory. What's wrong > with including the new field in the private platform or arch data > structure for drivers which need it? I have to second the concern; but for a different reason. This shouldn't even remotely be necessary. If the pin is used as an interrupt, then interrupt controller driver (which I would assume is also the gpio controller driver) should be responsible for setting up the pin so that it can be used correctly as a irq line. Why does the gpio number need to be explicitly passed? g. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
