On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Linus Walleij wrote: > (...) > >> Is biasing what you need to do? > (...) > >> All I really want is that platforms have a clear idea about > >> how and where the pins will be handled, and that if GPIO > >> and pinctrl handle the same lines, they need to interact. > >> > >> Yours, > >> Linus Walleij > > > > Friendly poke. > > I don't know how to respond to that? I asked a question about > what the intent of the patch was and the generic thinking > behind this approach and it remains unanswered. > > I think I have seen other patches doing the proper thing > for pinctrl-single by implementing the proper > pinctrl_request_gpio() > pinctrl_free_gpio() > pinctrl_gpio_direction_input() > pinctrl_gpio_direction_output() > in that very GPIO driver. > > So I suspect that this patch should be dropped, unless you > have some other compelling usecase to bring to the show? Actually it is I who is confused. I thought you answered some of the questions which was posed to me. The poke was a kind of does anyone else have any comments. I'm happy for the patch to be dropped. Does that mean it can be eradicated from the internal tree too then, because that is actually a suitable end result. -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- 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
