Re: [PATCHv3 0/7] gpio: extend basic_mmio_gpio for different controllers

[Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@gmail.com>]

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 12:09:39PM +0100, Jamie Iles wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 02:34:15AM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 11:04:08PM +0100, Jamie Iles wrote:
> > [...]
> > > The advantage that Grant's proposal has though is that the user can 
> > > override the gpio_chip callbacks.  When I tried porting over some 
> > > existing ARM platforms, one of the blocking issues was that lots of 
> > > platforms had some annoying small detail that was slightly different 
> > > (such as doing muxing in the _get() callback or needing a to_irq 
> > > callback).
> > > 
> > > If we make bgpio_chip public and return that from bgpio_probe 
> > > unregistered then the calling code can override some of the methods then 
> > > register the gpio_chip.
> > 
> > Oh, that makes sense, right.
> 
> I've just given this a try and it largely works, but it's probably 
> better if we allow bgpio_chip to be embedded in other structures.  For 
> example, the langwell driver has a gpio_to_irq callback that we would 
> need to get the IRQ base for the bank.  We could add a void *priv member 
> to bgpio_chip but that doesn't feel quite right.
> 
> So,
> 	int bgpio_init(struct bgpio_chip *bgc, struct device *dev, 
> 		       unsigned long sz, void __iomem *dat, ...)
> 
> rather than a probe() that returns the bgpio_chip?

Sounds good to me.

Thanks,

-- 
Anton Vorontsov
Email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com