From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Hunter Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] gpio/omap: Add DT support to GPIO driver Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:52:55 -0500 Message-ID: <516EA937.8060201@ti.com> References: <1329321854-24490-1-git-send-email-b-cousson@ti.com> <5165CB9D.1090202@wwwdotorg.org> <51671D7B.5060303@wwwdotorg.org> <51673D70.3010503@wwwdotorg.org> <516C31C3.9040505@wwwdotorg.org> <516C7C43.3040105@wwwdotorg.org> <516C8760.2050500@ti.com> <516D9B05.1000501@wwwdotorg.org> <516DA60A.5070000@ti.com> <516DCCA8.3070108@wwwdotorg.org> <516DDB4D.9020500@ti.com> <516E022F.5050708@ti.com> <516EA2B1.3070201@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "devicetree-discuss" To: Javier Martinez Canillas Cc: Stephen Warren , Kevin Hilman , Alexandre Courbot , "linux-omap-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 04/17/2013 08:42 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >> >> On 04/17/2013 02:55 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> >> ... >> >>> There are so many patches flying around in this thread that I missed it :-) >>> >>> Sorry about that... >> >> No problem. >> >>>> I was trying to see if we could find a common solution that everyone >>>> could use as it seems that ideally we should all be requesting the gpio. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Jon >>>> >>>> [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=136606204823845&w=1 >>> >>> btw, I shared the latest patch with only build testing it, but today I >>> gave a try and I found a problem with this approach. The .xlate >>> function is being called twice for each GPIO-IRQ so the first time >>> gpio_request_one() succeeds but the second time it fails returning >>> -EBUSY. >> >> I tried it and I did not see that. I don't see the below warning either. >> > > weird, I wonder what's different here. I am testing on an omap4-sdp which uses a spi based ethernet device. However, I could try with the omap3430-sdp which uses gpmc. Cheers Jon