[apologies for the MTA fart causing that weird, rouge blank email :-) ]
On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 18:11 +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> Ben Nizette :
> >
> > static inline int gpio_is_valid(int number)
> > {
> > /* only some non-negative numbers are valid */
> > return ((unsigned)number) < ARCH_NR_GPIOS;
> > }
>
> I understand that the better way to solve this issue is to:
> - keep the AT91 way of specifying not connected pins (= 0)
> - code the gpio_is_valid() function for at91 that tests this way of
> handling not connected gpio
>
I'm not sure I'd break cross-arch compat here, but whatever. I guess it
depends how deeply the =0 stuff is ingrained in the at91 codebase
> I see that in arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/gpio.h
> we include the asm-generic/gpio.h file... must I implement the full set
> of gpiolib ?
I'd suggest creating an ARCH_HAVE_GPIO_VALID (darn, long name) or
something; define it before #include <asm-generic/gpio.h> and #ifdef
protect the offending declaration in that header.
--Ben.
>
> Best regards,
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
