Re: [RFC] gpio/stmpe: add bitmask to block requests to unavailable GPIOs

[Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1766 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 06:36:05PM +0530, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:31:37 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 03:39:50PM +0530, Rabin VINCENT wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 17:14:44 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > > GPIOs on these controller are multi-functional. If you decided to use
> > > > some of them e.g. as input channels for the ADC, you surely don't want
> > > > those pins to be reassigned as simple GPIOs (which may be triggered even
> > > > from userspace via 'export'). Same for the touchscreen controller pins.
> > > > Since knowledge about the hardware is needed to decide which GPIOs to
> > > > reserve, let this bitmask be inside platform_data and provide some
> > > > defines to assist potential users.
> > > 
> > > Could this be done without the platform data, say something like the
> > > below?  (Though this does assume that nobody tries to request GPIOs
> > > before the STMPE subdrivers reserve their pins.)
> > > 
> > 
> > While I'd also like to skip the additional platform_data entry, your
> > last comment is in deed a drawback.
> 
> Yes, especially if the subdrivers are dynamically loaded.  Your patch is
> fine with me: 
> 
> Acked-by: Rabin Vincent <rabin.vincent@stericsson.com>

Thanks.

> The only minor comment is that the STMPE_GPIO_NOREQ_811_TOUCH name could
> perhaps be clearer.  STMPE811_GPIO_NOREQ_TOUCHSCREEN, maybe?

I thought of STMPE_GPIO_NOREQ as common prefix, 811 as type, and TOUCH
as function. But I don't insist on it; will do what it takes to get this
patch upstream ;)

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]