Re: gpio-exar: Why filtering out Commtech devices?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2017-05-22 07:48, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2017-05-21 22:08, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
>> Hi Jan,
>>
>> On 21/05/17 12:46, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Hi Sudip,
>>>
>>> why do we carry
>>>
>>>     if (pcidev->vendor != PCI_VENDOR_ID_EXAR)
>>>         return -ENODEV;
>>>
>>> in gpio_exar_probe? This effectively prevents that
>>>
>>>     EXAR_DEVICE(COMMTECH, COMMTECH_4222PCIE, pbn_exar_XR17V35x),
>>>     EXAR_DEVICE(COMMTECH, COMMTECH_4224PCIE, pbn_exar_XR17V35x),
>>>     EXAR_DEVICE(COMMTECH, COMMTECH_4228PCIE, pbn_exar_XR17V35x),
>>>
>>> gain GPIO support. Do those devices lack access to the pins? Or can we
>>> drop the filter. I don't have access to those devices, just wondering
>>> because the code is not explaining the reason.
>>
>> Same here. I do not have these devices and have no idea if they support
>> the gpio pins or not.
>>
>> Adding Matt Schulte in the Cc list, maybe he can comment.
>>
>>
> 
> If we need to keep the condition, it should be moved over to 8250_exar:
> there is no point in creating the platform device at all then. But let's
> wait for Matt's comment.

Unfortunately, his account is no longer existing. Is there anyone else
we can ask?

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA ITP SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux SPI]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux ARM (vger)]     [Linux ARM MSM]     [Linux Omap]     [Linux Arm]     [Linux Tegra]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Samsung SOC]     [eCos]     [Linux Fastboot]     [Gcc Help]     [Git]     [DCCP]     [IETF Announce]     [Security]     [Linux MIPS]     [Yosemite Campsites]

  Powered by Linux