From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: janakiram.sistla@gmail.com (Janakiram Sistla) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 11:09:06 -0800 Subject: [PATCH v4 2/2] msm: gpio: Add irq support to v2 gpiolib. In-Reply-To: References: <1290109970-26752-1-git-send-email-gbean@codeaurora.org> <1290109970-26752-2-git-send-email-gbean@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Gregory Bean wrote: >>>>> Targets with the v2 block define CONFIG_MSM_V2_TLMM. >>>> >>>> So in that case we can name ?it as gpio-tlmm.c ?? >>> >>> No, not and have things be any clearer. >>> >>> All MSM chips have a TLMM block. ?The older chips have >>> version 1 (v1) of the TLMM block. ?The newer chips have v2. >> >> I think that we should differentiate the new gpio infrastructure with >> appropriate naming that makes the diff between v1 and v2 > > What do you suggest? ?All MSM SoCs have a TLMM block. ?The block itself > carries no model or revision name, and is not tied specifically to any > particular SoC, except for the fact that the second generation of this block > happened to appear at the same time as the MSM8x60. > > gpio.c is already in wide use for v1 systems, and is well-establised > in the android mainlines. ?Changing without extremely good cause would not > go pleasantly. > > Since gpio.c is v1, we used gpio-v2.c for v2. Greg, i agree your point ,but i think v2 differs from v1 with a new features distinguished.Also there might be a intention behind going for v2 that might resolve some hardware erratas in v1. what if again a new generation comes then we will name it gpio-v3.c ?? > > -- > Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.