From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] [v6] pinctrl: qcom: disable GPIO groups with no pins Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 09:46:17 -0800 Message-ID: <20171117174617.GA29777@codeaurora.org> References: <1510096056-13765-1-git-send-email-timur@codeaurora.org> <1510096056-13765-4-git-send-email-timur@codeaurora.org> <20171117024332.GU11955@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:60734 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161135AbdKQRqT (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:46:19 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Timur Tabi Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, Linus Walleij , Andy Shevchenko , Mika Westerberg , thierry.reding@gmail.com, david.brown@linaro.org, andy.gross@linaro.org, Bjorn Andersson On 11/16, Timur Tabi wrote: > On 11/16/17 8:43 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >>Most access to unavailable GPIOs can be blocked via the gpio_chip.request > >>function. The one exception is when gpiochip_add_data() scans all of > > >If patch 1 is applied is this statement still true? > > Nope. > Ok. So what's the point of this patch then? Put another way, is there some path that doesn't request the gpio still even with patch 1 applied? -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project