* David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx> [080122 18:16]: > On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > Yeah, I agree, changing into gpiolib is a good idea. We should also > > split gpio.c into mach-omap1 and mach-omap2 parts. > > Splitting omap1 and omap2/3 gpio would be a good cleanup, yes. :) > > I'll try to make time to refresh my omap gpiolib patch against > the latest gpiolib framework code (it may not even be needed). > But it'd be good if someone else would do that split. Well I can split it up, it's been bugging me for a while now. So let's first apply Kevin's fixes, then the gpiolib, then split it up. If gpiolib merge takes longer, we can split it up first, then apply gpiolib patches. > There's various platform stuff to roll in. The pcf857x code > worked OK last I tried; various devboards should learn to use > it. The tps65010 patch should be easy to refresh, as should > the debug board (H2/H3/H4/P2/...) FPGA support. That'd take > a big bite out of all that ... OK > I don't know of any holdups to keep the GPIOLIB framework out > of 2.6.25-early; it's in current MM. So a 2.6.25-rc1-omap1 > should have at least the core of all that work. Cool. Tony - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
