From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation/gpio.txt: Explain expected pinctrl interaction Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:32:12 -0600 Message-ID: <20120312163212.70E283E07B0@localhost> References: <1329719263-18971-1-git-send-email-swarren@nvidia.com> Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Linus Walleij , Stephen Warren Cc: Linus Walleij , Randy Dunlap , Olof Johansson , Colin Cross , Chris Ball , linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mmc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:46:03 +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: > > > Update gpio.txt based on recent discussions regarding interaction with the > > pinctrl subsystem. > > > > Previously, gpio_request() was described as explicitly not performing any > > required mux setup operations etc. > > > > Now, gpio_request() is explicitly as explicitly performing any required mux > > setup operations where possible. In the case it isn't, platform code is > > required to have set up any required muxing or other configuration prior to > > gpio_request() being called, in order to maintain the same semantics. > > > > This is achieved by gpiolib drivers calling e.g. pinctrl_request_gpio() in > > their .request() operation. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren > > Acked-by: Linus Walleij > > Grant can you take this one? I'd prefer for you to have a look at > it as well. I've taken this one, but left the 2nd for Olof. g.