Messages in this thread | | | From | David Brownell <> | Subject | Re: [patch 2.6.20-rc1 0/6] arch-neutral GPIO calls | Date | Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:46:57 -0800 |
| |
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 3:30 pm, Håvard Skinnemoen wrote: > On 12/20/06, David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> wrote: > > Based on earlier discussion, I'm sending a refresh of the generic GPIO > > patch, with several (ARM based) implementations in separate patches: > > > > - Core patch, doc + <asm-arm/gpio.h> + <asm-generic/gpio.h> > > - OMAP implementation > > - AT91 implementation > > - PXA implementation > > - SA1100 implementation > > - S3C2410 implementation > > > > I know there's an AVR32 implementation too; and there's been interest > > in this for some PPC support as well. > > Great, thanks Dave. Unfortunately, I'm going to be more or less > offline for the rest of the year, but FWIW, the AVR32 implementation > is already in -mm as part of git-avr32.patch.
That's appropriate; after all, as a programming interface, it's appropriate that there be multiple implementations! Presumably that doc is missing, but the API calls _should_ make sense on their own.
> I guess I should check > and see if it's in sync with the rest.
I'd at most expect you're missing an #include <asm-generic/gpio.h> for the cansleep variants ... which only got added because folk agreed such spinlock-unsafe calls were needed, not because anyone had a pressing near-term need for them. (Unlike the spinlock-safe functionality, which is _very_ widely implemented.)
> I'll refresh the atmel_spi patch when I get back to work in january.
Heh, maybe I can even try it out by then. ;)
- Dave
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |