From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shiraz Hashim Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: stmpe: Add DT support for stmpe gpio Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 18:00:48 +0530 Message-ID: <20121123123048.GM5384@localhost.localdomain> References: <912d88b8906ce87cf5459cf3d5798e03bfce34c7.1353649737.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <20121123103400.GO17471@gmail.com> <20121123121413.GB22268@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121123121413.GB22268@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Lee Jones Cc: Viresh Kumar , linus.walleij@linaro.org, grant.likely@secretlab.ca, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, spear-devel@list.st.com, Vipul Kumar Samar List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:14:13PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > >> + if (np) > > >> + of_property_read_u32(np, "st,norequest-mask", > > >> + &pdata->norequest_mask); > > > > > > Can you explain to me what this does? > > > > You mean pdata->norequest_mask? It marks few gpios as unusable. > > Because these pads might be used by other blocks of stmpe. > > I'm not sure if that should be set with DT or not. > > Second opinion anyone? This is a board dependent parameter which just informs gpio driver about pins, which must not be requested. It may happen for a stmpe variant where such gpio pins are multiplexed with some other function. Hence it must be part of DT itself. -- regards Shiraz