On 04/15/2013 11:53 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 04/13/2013 07:35 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> ...
>> Is the following inlined patch [1] what you were thinking that would
>> be the right approach?
> ...
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
> ...
>> +static int omap_gpio_irq_request(struct irq_data *d)
>> +{
>> + struct gpio_bank *bank = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>> +
>> + return omap_gpio_request(&bank->chip, d->hwirq);
>
> If you want the GPIO usage to be known to the GPIO subsystem, then
> wouldn't you call gpio_request() here rather than omap_gpio_request()?
> The above code will certainly do enough so that the OMAP GPIO HW is
> fully enabled as you need, but I thought the idea was to also prevent
> some other code successfully running gpio_request() on that same GPIO?
Also, although omap gpios default to being inputs, we should not assume
that. So may be you should call gpio_request_one() here passing as flags
GPIOF_IN to configure as an input.
Cheers
Jon
--
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
