Hi dee Ho peeps (Biju, Geert, Linus and all)
On 28/02/2025 12:28, Biju Das wrote:
Hi Geert,
-----Original Message-----
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 at 09:07, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 12:42 PM Matti Vaittinen
<mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 26/02/2025 12:18, Linus Walleij wrote:
I agree, when the code is mainlined at that time set_multiple() has some draw backs and hence
the check is added to take care of GPIO holes.
If I don't read it wrong, rcar GPIO supports some input enabling "en
masse" during the probe. It seems to me the gpio_rcar_enable_inputs()
does also need the valid GPIOs information - I suppose some of the GPIOs
may have been masked in the device-tree, and those shouldn't be enabled.
It feels counter productive to hide the valid_mask - and do some
device-tree parsing in the driver(s) which may need it.
I suppose we can still hide the valid_mask in struct gpio_device as
suggested - but then we should probably create a getter for it in the
gpiolib.
Or does someone see a way around needing the valid_mask in the
gpio_rcar_enable_inputs() ?
Have a nice weekend!
Yours,
-- Matti
