Re: [PATCH 3/6] pinctrl: armada-37xx: Add gpio support

[Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Gregory CLEMENT
<gregory.clement@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  On ven., déc. 30 2016, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>> +       mask = BIT(offset);
>>> +
>>> +       regmap_read(info->regmap, reg, &val);
>>>
>>> +       return (val & mask) == 0;
>>
>> Use this:
>>
>> return !(val & mask);
>
> done but I could tou explain the advantage of doing it?

The other controllers do it so makes the code easier to
perceptualize.

>>> +       ret = gpiochip_add_pin_range(&info->gpio_chip, dev_name(dev), 0,
>>> +                                    pinbase, info->data->nr_pins);
>>> +       if (ret)
>>> +               return ret;
>>
>> Why do you do this?
>>
>> Why not just put the ranges into the device tree? We already support
>> this in the gpiolib core and it is helpful.
>>
>> See Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt
>> and other DTS files for gpio-ranges.
>
> Following your review, I tried to use it but it didn't work for
> me. When the second pin controller was probed then there was collision
> for the gpio number. I tried several combination without any luck.

That sounds like a bug. Are you using dynamic GPIO number
assignments?

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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