From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: stigge@antcom.de (Roland Stigge) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:51:46 +0200 Subject: [PATCH RFC 1/2] gpio: Add a block GPIO API to gpiolib In-Reply-To: <20120928075145.GW17667@game.jcrosoft.org> References: <1348780923-27428-1-git-send-email-stigge@antcom.de> <20120928024744.GV17667@game.jcrosoft.org> <50654E57.3080201@antcom.de> <20120928075145.GW17667@game.jcrosoft.org> Message-ID: <50656522.1050900@antcom.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi! On 09/28/2012 09:51 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: >> Right - will add checking for the request state of the respective GPIOs. >> >> The list of GPIOs to handle is defined by the offset (specified GPIO) >> and bitmapped list. >> >> If it looks more natural, I can change this to a list of ints specifying >> GPIOs directly. > you pass the correctly information to the gpiolib > > as if you do not request the gpio the gpiolib will auto request the gpios > so you api will be > int gpio_get_block(unsigned int *gpios, u8* values, size_t size); > > return an error > > int gpio_set_block(unsigned int *gpios, u8* set, size_t size); > > so you do not care about the banks you work on the gpiolib framework will call > each gpio_chip seperatly. If the set_block get_block is not availlable the > gpiolib could fallback to get/set > > inside of the gpiolib that you call each bank with a bitmapped list is correct > but not in the public gpiolib API Good idea! Talking about the public API (your above gpio_set_block()): *gpios is a list of GPIOs, but set is still bitmapped (mapped onto the list specified in *gpios)? To prevent confusion about what the size argument means (number of gpios in *gpios _or_ number of bytes in the bitmap *set) - wouldn't it be clearer to have a "bool *set" and "bool *values" list? >>> And how you can hope to describe this via DT >> >> Haven't had planned that yet. Finally, this interface should just be >> another view on the GPIOs already requested / assigned. Or which >> additional info do you mean? > how do you plan to give the gpio base vai DT to the driver as via DT we just > pass the list of GPIO to work on Right. If I understand correctly, with the above discussed changes, this "GPIO base" issue is gone... Thanks for your feedback! Roland From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757381Ab2I1Ivv (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2012 04:51:51 -0400 Received: from antcom.de ([188.40.178.216]:52499 "EHLO chuck.antcom.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756989Ab2I1Ivs (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2012 04:51:48 -0400 Message-ID: <50656522.1050900@antcom.de> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:51:46 +0200 From: Roland Stigge Organization: ANTCOM IT Research & Development User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0.5) Gecko/20120624 Icedove/10.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD CC: grant.likely@secretlab.ca, linus.walleij@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, w.sang@pengutronix.de, jbe@pengutronix.de Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] gpio: Add a block GPIO API to gpiolib References: <1348780923-27428-1-git-send-email-stigge@antcom.de> <20120928024744.GV17667@game.jcrosoft.org> <50654E57.3080201@antcom.de> <20120928075145.GW17667@game.jcrosoft.org> In-Reply-To: <20120928075145.GW17667@game.jcrosoft.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4 OpenPGP: url=subkeys.pgp.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! On 09/28/2012 09:51 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: >> Right - will add checking for the request state of the respective GPIOs. >> >> The list of GPIOs to handle is defined by the offset (specified GPIO) >> and bitmapped list. >> >> If it looks more natural, I can change this to a list of ints specifying >> GPIOs directly. > you pass the correctly information to the gpiolib > > as if you do not request the gpio the gpiolib will auto request the gpios > so you api will be > int gpio_get_block(unsigned int *gpios, u8* values, size_t size); > > return an error > > int gpio_set_block(unsigned int *gpios, u8* set, size_t size); > > so you do not care about the banks you work on the gpiolib framework will call > each gpio_chip seperatly. If the set_block get_block is not availlable the > gpiolib could fallback to get/set > > inside of the gpiolib that you call each bank with a bitmapped list is correct > but not in the public gpiolib API Good idea! Talking about the public API (your above gpio_set_block()): *gpios is a list of GPIOs, but set is still bitmapped (mapped onto the list specified in *gpios)? To prevent confusion about what the size argument means (number of gpios in *gpios _or_ number of bytes in the bitmap *set) - wouldn't it be clearer to have a "bool *set" and "bool *values" list? >>> And how you can hope to describe this via DT >> >> Haven't had planned that yet. Finally, this interface should just be >> another view on the GPIOs already requested / assigned. Or which >> additional info do you mean? > how do you plan to give the gpio base vai DT to the driver as via DT we just > pass the list of GPIO to work on Right. If I understand correctly, with the above discussed changes, this "GPIO base" issue is gone... Thanks for your feedback! Roland