On Friday 02 September 2011, Stephen Warren wrote: > The idea was specifically to replace the need to call irq_to_gpio(i2c->irq). > If we did just rename it plain "gpio" and allow it to be used for anything, > then that does indeed start looking more like device-specific platform data. > > I guess it sounds like consensus is to go that way. It does seem like that > will end up creating a bunch more device-specific platform-data files though. > I wonder if adding IORESOURCE_GPIO would make sense so this could be handled > in a generic way without custom platform data types? Interesting point. That's probably best for Grant to comment on, because it depends on the long-term direction he wants to take with this. I suppose that an IORESOURCE_GPIO makes a lot of sense if we expect to keep having a flat system-wide gpio number space in the long run, similar to irq numbers. It would not fit well if we expect gpio numbers to be local to a gpio controller, with no unique global identifier for them, similar to how dma channels in the dma-engine subsystem are handled. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
