W dniu 2014-11-17 o 10:26, Richard Genoud pisze:
2014-11-17 0:59 GMT+01:00 Janusz Użycki <j.uzycki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
W dniu 2014-11-16 o 22:42, Uwe Kleine-König pisze:
Thanks Uwe. I fully agree with you.
a) was just a starter to your suggestion. My options were too conservative -
I just
wanted to avoid tests on hardware I don't have.
I don't understand why gpiod_get_direction() always requires the callback
and b) would be broken (I'm not so familiar with gpiolib) but I don't need
it now.
So, it looks we can drop the gpio-mxs patch, yes?
And, I or Richard should submit a patch for
mctrl_gpio/atmel_serial/mxs-auart
to introduce the irq helper, yes?
You're welcome to do it !
At the time the mctrl_helpers were introduced, there was only one user
(atmel_serial), so the line between specific code and factorizable
code was not so clear.
But clearly, the more we factorize, the better !
You wrote passing uart_port is enough. Argument "name" for request_irq() can
be
recovered from dev_name(dev) or dev_driver_string(dev) where dev =
port_uart->dev.
And, honestly, I'm not sure dev_name(dev) is a good name.
Having something like dev_name(dev)_port_id_CTS may be better.
For names other than device's or driver's name I would need to allocate
string. Is it so important? You can simple check the interrupt and
corresponding port:
cat /proc/interrupts
50: 0 gpio-mxs 21 80072000.serial
80: 0 gpio-mxs 18 8006c000.serial
81: 0 gpio-mxs 19 8006c000.serial
83: 0 gpio-mxs 21 8006c000.serial
84: 0 gpio-mxs 22 8006c000.serial
best regards
Janusz
Seems ok !
Richard.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
