Andrew Victor :
> hi David,
>
>> On Friday 19 June 2009, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
>>> David Brownell wrote:
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45_devices.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45_devices.c
>>>>> + /* Enable VBus control for UHP ports */
>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < data->ports; i++) {
>>>>> + if (data->vbus_pin[i])
>>>>> + at91_set_gpio_output(data->vbus_pin[i], 0);
>>>> This should gpio_request() and gpio_direction_output().
>>> Hmm...I thought the driver was supposed to call gpio_request(), not the
>>> platform code?
>> In some cases. This isn't a good case for that. Especially
>> if it's going to call gpio_direction_output() ... which needs
>> gpio_request() to have been done first.
>
> I have to agree with Haavard on this - it's really not clear if
> gpio_request() should be called in the platform-code or in the driver.
>
> If the platform code performs a gpio_request() then surely it needs to
> call a gpio_free() after configuring the pin.
> Otherwise the driver's initialization code performs another
> gpio_request() for that pin, but it is still "in-use" by the platform
> code.
>
> Also Documentation/gpio.txt doesn't say if a GPIO pin should even
> retain it's configured state across after a gpio_free().
>
>
> So for the core AT91 platform code, I'd continue to use the
> AT91-specific GPIO configuration functions.
> The drivers should perform the gpio_request() / gpio_free(), and it
> can still call gpio_direction_output() if necessary.
Fair enough. So I forget my gpiolib patch on top of the former USB
integration one.
With your Ack, I will publish it to Russell's patch tracking system...
Bye,
--
Nicolas Ferre
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
