From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: balbi@ti.com (Felipe Balbi) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:45:50 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v9 01/25] gpio/omap: remove dependency on gpio_bank_count In-Reply-To: <20120202191630.GT15343@ponder.secretlab.ca> References: <1328203851-20435-1-git-send-email-tarun.kanti@ti.com> <1328203851-20435-2-git-send-email-tarun.kanti@ti.com> <20120202184106.GC29215@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20120202191630.GT15343@ponder.secretlab.ca> Message-ID: <20120202194545.GA29351@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 12:16:30PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 08:41:07PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 11:00:27PM +0530, Tarun Kanti DebBarma wrote: > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c > > > index 0b05629..6ea7390 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c > > > @@ -28,7 +28,10 @@ > > > #include > > > #include > > > > > > +static LIST_HEAD(omap_gpio_list); > > > > I guess it's now too late because patch is acked and everything, but I > > think if you make the driver handle one bank alone and just instantiate > > it multiple times (omap_gpio.0, omap_gpio.1, omap_gpio.3, etc) driver > > would be faaaaaar simpler. > > Is there any shared state between the banks? On my very cursory glance it > looked like banks still have some interaction between them. If not, then > yes I agree that multiple instances would be better. A quick glance at the TRM shows that banks have separate address spaces and IRQ lines. I think it's done this way because we can handoff one (or more) bank to other cores on the SoC, so they need to be pretty independent. I could be missing something though. -- balbi -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: