On 12/28, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 3:01 AM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The different approaches come down to expressing > > which pins are available through the gpio valid mask, or through > > the npins field of the msm pinctrl driver. Also, my approach > > covers more than just GPIOs, it covers irqs and adjusts the > > pinctrl pin request function so that pinctrl can't request > > unavailable pins. > > I agree, this is better. Thanks for the feedback. I'll update and resend my patch to the list. > > Would even patch 1 be needed after this? Maybe I should > revert that too. Leaving that code in has the upside of showing > the actual initial directions of GPIO lines even if they have > not been requested, in e.g. debugfs. > Patch 1 is still needed. Without that patch, we'll be poking each GPIO to figure out the direction at boot without checking any valid mask or calling the request APIs. I don't see the part in debugfs where we show the direction of a GPIO if it hasn't been requested. Don't we skip over the unrequested GPIOs because of this code in gpiolib_dbg_show()? if (!test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &gdesc->flags)) { ... continue; } -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- 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