Hi Sekhar, On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Nori, Sekhar <nsekhar@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 19:45:46, Ben Gardiner wrote: >> [...] >> I was assuming that those pins were not exported as gpio pins on >> purpose; I was taking the prudent approach to prevent haphazard >> toggling of sw_rst and deep_sleep_en from userspace. sw_rst because it >> could initiate a reset of the cpu when toggled and deep_sleep_en >> because it can override the behaviour of davinci_pm_enter(). >> >> I'm not sure how they would be used by existing kernel classes either. >> The sw_rst pin could be used for reset but since it is on the other >> end of an i2c bus and there is an existing implementation of reset >> using the on chip watchdog I don't think it would be benficial to >> switch. Deep_sleep_en could override the behaviour in >> davinci_pm_enter() -- _maybe_ (I don't really know) it could be used >> as a hardware-assisted suspend-blocker? But I totally guessing here. > > My preference would be to leave these pins as is > (don't call a gpio_request() on them) till someone > comes up with a use case for them. From what you > described, sysfs access cannot happen "accidently" > so someone accessing these pins from sysfs surely > knows what he is doing. No problem. I will re-spin the patch shortly with the deep_sleep_en and sw_rst pins free for use by client code. Best Regards, Ben Gardiner --- Nanometrics Inc. http://www.nanometrics.ca -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
