On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 03:00:55PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 09:04:12AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > This is a preliminary posting of my gpio patch set.
> >
> > This patch series moves the trivial gpiolib implementations out of
> > mach/gpio.h and into asm/gpio.h.
> >
> > As a side effect of that, most of this patch series is about fixing up
> > direct includes of mach/gpio.h - this is something I've been on at
> > people over the last year or more about ensuring that they use
> > linux/gpio.h in preference. While I've blindly converted all arch/arm
> > to use linux/gpio.h (with the exception of mach/ includes which are
> > converted to asm/gpio.h), drivers were only converted to asm/gpio.h.
> > These should be reviewed and changed to linux/gpio.h.
> >
> > As a result of this patch series, several mach/gpio.h end up being
> > empty.
> >
> > Many others just contain platform private GPIO APIs and definitions.
> >
> > The last thing which mach/gpio.h is used for is to provide a definition
> > for ARCH_GPIO_NR to asm-generic/gpio.h. I've not attempted to solve
> > that issue yet.
> >
> > A small number of platforms optimize the gpio accessors for on-SoC
> > GPIOs. In the interests of consolidation, these will have to be killed
> > but this patch set does not do that yet.
> >
> > Lastly, several {mach,plat}/gpio.h needs to be looked at with a view to
> > deleting the direct include of asm-generic/gpio.h.
>
> Looks good to me, though I haven't looked closely. I imagine this
> should get merged via a branch in the arm-soc tree?
And this is where the existence of the arm-soc tree makes things more
difficult for me. I'd normally just keep it as a separate branch in
my own tree. What I do now, I've no idea.
--
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
