Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: baytrail: explicitly set gpio chip base

[Antonio Ospite <ao2@xxxxxx>]

On Tue, 12 May 2015 09:48:12 +0200
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Antonio Ospite <ao2@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 May 2015 13:40:00 +0300 Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> >> Well, if you happen to have another GPIO chip (a GPIO expander for
> >> example) and it somehow gets loaded before this driver. It may take the
> >> range you have reserved for the BYT driver.
> >>
> >> Not sure how realistic case that is, though...
> >
> > Indeed, being this for the SoC gpio controller I thought it was
> > unlikely, however I do not have a huge experience on these matters.
> >
> > I have no strong opinion on this, Mika, so whether or not you merge the
> > change it'll be fine by me.
> 
> The ability to set .base is basically there for legacy reasons,
> and the critical legacy case is usually when setting it to 0
> for the on-SoC GPIO.
>
> In the long run we want to get rid of static GPIO numbers
> altogether so I prefer if you construct your userspace to
> traverse sysfs to get the GPIOs you need to get at,
> sysfs is horrible and unreliable for GPIO.
> 

OK, if the use of static .base is deprecated my patch is inappropriate,
I self-NACK it and we can close this thread.

Thanks for the replies,
   Antonio

-- 
Antonio Ospite
http://ao2.it

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
   See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
--
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