Re: [PATCH 0/2] [v5] pinctrl: qcom: add support for sparse GPIOs

[Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Timur Tabi <timur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 9/21/17 7:08 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>
>> I guess gpio_valid_mask would take precedence over irq_valid_mask.
>> I.e if the GPIO is not valid then the IRQ is per definition not valid
>> either.
>>
>> Since it is a new thing, we can simply define a semantic like that
>> and document it.
>
> So what about my current patches?

I am waiting for the maintainer, Bjorn Andersson, to provide review.

>  I hope you're not asking me to rewrite
> them again.

I don't understand your remark. If you are impatient, such is life.

What is your response to Stephen's comment:

> [Stephen Boyd]
> Perhaps we can add another hook for our purposes here that
> tells gpiolib that the gpio is not usable and to skip it. The
> semantics would be clear, it's just about probing availability of
> this pin as a gpio and doesn't mux any pins.

I think this kind of related to my response (after I realized it
was not just about IRQs):

> Doesn't that mean we need something like irq_valid_mask but rather
> gpio_valid_mask that just block all usage of certain GPIOs?

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