From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Generic PWM API implementation Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:40:28 -0700 Message-ID: References: <200911170027.38664.david-b@pacbell.net> <4B0A989B.3070403@billgatliff.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4B0A989B.3070403@billgatliff.com> Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: Bill Gatliff Cc: David Brownell , linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org, Mike Frysinger On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Bill Gatliff wr= ote: > Grant Likely wrote: >> >> But that *isn't* the primary purpose of the GPIO subsystem. =A0All t= hat >> stuff is layered on top of the GPIO pin management code and doesn't >> really play into this debate. >> > > I don't understand you. =A0You are saying that the majority of gpioch= ip > implementations also deal with pin multiplexing? =A0They must be terr= ibly > broken on the platforms I'm working on, then, because they don't seem= to > work at all! =A0:) Nope. pin mux is a different problem. I'm talking about the code to register pin controller drivers and for users to obtain a reference to a pin. g. --=20 Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.