On 2017-05-22 07:48, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2017-05-21 22:08, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: >> Hi Jan, >> >> On 21/05/17 12:46, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Hi Sudip, >>> >>> why do we carry >>> >>> if (pcidev->vendor != PCI_VENDOR_ID_EXAR) >>> return -ENODEV; >>> >>> in gpio_exar_probe? This effectively prevents that >>> >>> EXAR_DEVICE(COMMTECH, COMMTECH_4222PCIE, pbn_exar_XR17V35x), >>> EXAR_DEVICE(COMMTECH, COMMTECH_4224PCIE, pbn_exar_XR17V35x), >>> EXAR_DEVICE(COMMTECH, COMMTECH_4228PCIE, pbn_exar_XR17V35x), >>> >>> gain GPIO support. Do those devices lack access to the pins? Or can we >>> drop the filter. I don't have access to those devices, just wondering >>> because the code is not explaining the reason. >> >> Same here. I do not have these devices and have no idea if they support >> the gpio pins or not. >> >> Adding Matt Schulte in the Cc list, maybe he can comment. >> >> > > If we need to keep the condition, it should be moved over to 8250_exar: > there is no point in creating the platform device at all then. But let's > wait for Matt's comment. Unfortunately, his account is no longer existing. Is there anyone else we can ask? Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA ITP SES-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
