On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 05:15:31PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 09:08:01AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/gpio.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/gpio.h > > index 166a7a3..15e8970 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/gpio.h > > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/gpio.h > > @@ -4,4 +4,14 @@ > > /* not all ARM platforms necessarily support this API ... */ > > #include <mach/gpio.h> > > > > +#ifdef __ARM_GPIOLIB_TRIVIAL > > +/* Note: this may rely upon the value of ARCH_NR_GPIOS set in mach/gpio.h */ > > +#include <asm-generic/gpio.h> > > + > > +/* The trivial gpiolib dispatchers */ > > +#define gpio_get_value __gpio_get_value > > +#define gpio_set_value __gpio_set_value > > +#define gpio_cansleep __gpio_cansleep > > +#endif > > could that be a selectable symbol ? Something like: > > CONFIG_HAS_ARM_TRIVIAL_GPIO > > then on Kconfig you just: > > select HAS_ARM_TIVIAL_GPIO or something ? That makes things more complicated, because that involves digging through a lot of platform code in a couple of places to work out exactly when we need this - and it crosses the boundary to arch/sh too. So I'd prefer to keep this simple. The long-term goal is to remove that symbol entirely, but in order to do that we need to kill of the "optimized" on-board SoC stuff in those (few) gpio.h which don't have the symbol selected. This is rather necessary to progress towards the consolidated kernel. (Re-inventing gpiolib by moving them out of line isn't a good idea...) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |