Searched hist:"1 e63d7b9" (Results 1 – 5 of 5) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/include/linux/pinctrl/ |
| H A D | pinctrl.h | 1e63d7b9 Tue Nov 06 09:03:35 CST 2012 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> gpiolib: separation of pin concerns
The fact that of_gpiochip_add_pin_range() and
gpiochip_add_pin_range() share too much code is fragile and
will invariably mean that bugs need to be fixed in two places
instead of one.
So separate the concerns of gpiolib.c and gpiolib-of.c and
have the latter call the former as back-end. This is necessary
also when going forward with other device descriptions such
as ACPI.
This is done by:
- Adding a return code to gpiochip_add_pin_range() so we can
reliably check whether this succeeds.
- Get rid of the custom of_pinctrl_add_gpio_range() from
pinctrl. Instead create of_pinctrl_get() to just retrive the
pin controller per se from an OF node. This composite
function was just begging to be deleted, it was way to
purpose-specific.
- Use pinctrl_dev_get_name() to get the name of the retrieved
pin controller and use that to call back into the generic
gpiochip_add_pin_range().
Now the pin range is only allocated and tied to a pin
controller from the core implementation in gpiolib.c.
Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
1e63d7b9 Tue Nov 06 09:03:35 CST 2012 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> gpiolib: separation of pin concerns
The fact that of_gpiochip_add_pin_range() and
gpiochip_add_pin_range() share too much code is fragile and
will invariably mean that bugs need to be fixed in two places
instead of one.
So separate the concerns of gpiolib.c and gpiolib-of.c and
have the latter call the former as back-end. This is necessary
also when going forward with other device descriptions such
as ACPI.
This is done by:
- Adding a return code to gpiochip_add_pin_range() so we can
reliably check whether this succeeds.
- Get rid of the custom of_pinctrl_add_gpio_range() from
pinctrl. Instead create of_pinctrl_get() to just retrive the
pin controller per se from an OF node. This composite
function was just begging to be deleted, it was way to
purpose-specific.
- Use pinctrl_dev_get_name() to get the name of the retrieved
pin controller and use that to call back into the generic
gpiochip_add_pin_range().
Now the pin range is only allocated and tied to a pin
controller from the core implementation in gpiolib.c.
Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
|
| /openbmc/linux/include/linux/ |
| H A D | gpio.h | 1e63d7b9 Tue Nov 06 09:03:35 CST 2012 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> gpiolib: separation of pin concerns
The fact that of_gpiochip_add_pin_range() and
gpiochip_add_pin_range() share too much code is fragile and
will invariably mean that bugs need to be fixed in two places
instead of one.
So separate the concerns of gpiolib.c and gpiolib-of.c and
have the latter call the former as back-end. This is necessary
also when going forward with other device descriptions such
as ACPI.
This is done by:
- Adding a return code to gpiochip_add_pin_range() so we can
reliably check whether this succeeds.
- Get rid of the custom of_pinctrl_add_gpio_range() from
pinctrl. Instead create of_pinctrl_get() to just retrive the
pin controller per se from an OF node. This composite
function was just begging to be deleted, it was way to
purpose-specific.
- Use pinctrl_dev_get_name() to get the name of the retrieved
pin controller and use that to call back into the generic
gpiochip_add_pin_range().
Now the pin range is only allocated and tied to a pin
controller from the core implementation in gpiolib.c.
Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
1e63d7b9 Tue Nov 06 09:03:35 CST 2012 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> gpiolib: separation of pin concerns
The fact that of_gpiochip_add_pin_range() and
gpiochip_add_pin_range() share too much code is fragile and
will invariably mean that bugs need to be fixed in two places
instead of one.
So separate the concerns of gpiolib.c and gpiolib-of.c and
have the latter call the former as back-end. This is necessary
also when going forward with other device descriptions such
as ACPI.
This is done by:
- Adding a return code to gpiochip_add_pin_range() so we can
reliably check whether this succeeds.
- Get rid of the custom of_pinctrl_add_gpio_range() from
pinctrl. Instead create of_pinctrl_get() to just retrive the
pin controller per se from an OF node. This composite
function was just begging to be deleted, it was way to
purpose-specific.
- Use pinctrl_dev_get_name() to get the name of the retrieved
pin controller and use that to call back into the generic
gpiochip_add_pin_range().
Now the pin range is only allocated and tied to a pin
controller from the core implementation in gpiolib.c.
Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
|
| /openbmc/linux/drivers/gpio/ |
| H A D | gpiolib-of.c | 1e63d7b9 Tue Nov 06 09:03:35 CST 2012 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> gpiolib: separation of pin concerns
The fact that of_gpiochip_add_pin_range() and
gpiochip_add_pin_range() share too much code is fragile and
will invariably mean that bugs need to be fixed in two places
instead of one.
So separate the concerns of gpiolib.c and gpiolib-of.c and
have the latter call the former as back-end. This is necessary
also when going forward with other device descriptions such
as ACPI.
This is done by:
- Adding a return code to gpiochip_add_pin_range() so we can
reliably check whether this succeeds.
- Get rid of the custom of_pinctrl_add_gpio_range() from
pinctrl. Instead create of_pinctrl_get() to just retrive the
pin controller per se from an OF node. This composite
function was just begging to be deleted, it was way to
purpose-specific.
- Use pinctrl_dev_get_name() to get the name of the retrieved
pin controller and use that to call back into the generic
gpiochip_add_pin_range().
Now the pin range is only allocated and tied to a pin
controller from the core implementation in gpiolib.c.
Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
|
| H A D | gpiolib.c | 1e63d7b9 Tue Nov 06 09:03:35 CST 2012 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> gpiolib: separation of pin concerns
The fact that of_gpiochip_add_pin_range() and
gpiochip_add_pin_range() share too much code is fragile and
will invariably mean that bugs need to be fixed in two places
instead of one.
So separate the concerns of gpiolib.c and gpiolib-of.c and
have the latter call the former as back-end. This is necessary
also when going forward with other device descriptions such
as ACPI.
This is done by:
- Adding a return code to gpiochip_add_pin_range() so we can
reliably check whether this succeeds.
- Get rid of the custom of_pinctrl_add_gpio_range() from
pinctrl. Instead create of_pinctrl_get() to just retrive the
pin controller per se from an OF node. This composite
function was just begging to be deleted, it was way to
purpose-specific.
- Use pinctrl_dev_get_name() to get the name of the retrieved
pin controller and use that to call back into the generic
gpiochip_add_pin_range().
Now the pin range is only allocated and tied to a pin
controller from the core implementation in gpiolib.c.
Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
|
| /openbmc/linux/drivers/pinctrl/ |
| H A D | devicetree.c | 1e63d7b9 Tue Nov 06 09:03:35 CST 2012 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> gpiolib: separation of pin concerns
The fact that of_gpiochip_add_pin_range() and
gpiochip_add_pin_range() share too much code is fragile and
will invariably mean that bugs need to be fixed in two places
instead of one.
So separate the concerns of gpiolib.c and gpiolib-of.c and
have the latter call the former as back-end. This is necessary
also when going forward with other device descriptions such
as ACPI.
This is done by:
- Adding a return code to gpiochip_add_pin_range() so we can
reliably check whether this succeeds.
- Get rid of the custom of_pinctrl_add_gpio_range() from
pinctrl. Instead create of_pinctrl_get() to just retrive the
pin controller per se from an OF node. This composite
function was just begging to be deleted, it was way to
purpose-specific.
- Use pinctrl_dev_get_name() to get the name of the retrieved
pin controller and use that to call back into the generic
gpiochip_add_pin_range().
Now the pin range is only allocated and tied to a pin
controller from the core implementation in gpiolib.c.
Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
1e63d7b9 Tue Nov 06 09:03:35 CST 2012 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> gpiolib: separation of pin concerns
The fact that of_gpiochip_add_pin_range() and
gpiochip_add_pin_range() share too much code is fragile and
will invariably mean that bugs need to be fixed in two places
instead of one.
So separate the concerns of gpiolib.c and gpiolib-of.c and
have the latter call the former as back-end. This is necessary
also when going forward with other device descriptions such
as ACPI.
This is done by:
- Adding a return code to gpiochip_add_pin_range() so we can
reliably check whether this succeeds.
- Get rid of the custom of_pinctrl_add_gpio_range() from
pinctrl. Instead create of_pinctrl_get() to just retrive the
pin controller per se from an OF node. This composite
function was just begging to be deleted, it was way to
purpose-specific.
- Use pinctrl_dev_get_name() to get the name of the retrieved
pin controller and use that to call back into the generic
gpiochip_add_pin_range().
Now the pin range is only allocated and tied to a pin
controller from the core implementation in gpiolib.c.
Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
|