* Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> [170915 08:10]: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 03:54:56PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > Sorry about that. Let's move ahead with this now, it is neat and > > clean. > > > > What I want (as maintainer) is a bit of fingerpointing at the drivers > > that need to be converted to use the new banking infrastructure > > so they don't stay with their old crappy design pattern. OMAP is > > a clear candidate right? (Added Tony to CC...) > > OMAP should be able to use this infrastructure, but it may not want to > because the semantics would change slightly. Currently OMAP registers a > GPIO chip for each bank, whereas this infrastructure exposes multiple > banks via a single chip. Oh so you don't have separate interrupts for the instances? Thanks for clarifying that. > There might be some userspace that relies on the existence of multiple > chips, but Tony can probably knows that better than I. On omaps, each bank is a separate driver instance with it's own interrupt. Maybe really all we need to do is get rid of the "bank" naming, I think that's left over from 15 years ago when we did not have separate driver instances. It seems we should s/bank/ddata/ on the driver to avoid confusion. Grygorii, any comments? Regards, 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
