From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757967Ab0IGSKT (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Sep 2010 14:10:19 -0400 Received: from n78.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com ([98.136.44.42]:46819 "HELO n78.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756933Ab0IGSKP (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Sep 2010 14:10:15 -0400 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 678262.34264.bm@omp120.mail.gq1.yahoo.com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=pacbell.net; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=WuyIrimc2wLGT0F8DdDQUY3Br3NgLGrROik1M4x8ZT84ET0YarZxN1hHvJw0AzIwET6J4wvh0qJaA7pc+BXIpGRZaW7r6YT8QiehzvDkZQObUwuwuYNN3ITq/za/lDkyAz8KNNTCfmDzgLPJI4bbf3cZBuYVRAzmGpkhuEIiy00=; Message-ID: <569801.35222.qm@web180310.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: hLMcrhQVM1mGpvuVqlx49LaOS5gJkFBzk0idNZ87PqohGVd EJ6IJkMRhGf5V2OCZOo82L2ttJiJwrVxJW6TZAis8XgFr3A41cG0nuLo0xfH V8qFTKKp7SqUcQ6MY3nCwYKtAcxWF4Z4wO.pUtw58Zt2spn8auAIZ1oHRIjQ q2WhP1pCEVh4aepw.Wo2BKYPWnQxDv6YpfjZqwFwioc1fhz.dTamYNkQ4twa IDfKMxWw4JzGM3gwQkQaH7_PQpjRnZ_5QaukYkQMmBVc4wqfIbSZ6QYhZYAy NGfV0GfYn8cxSNOrnvAcOI9B3bmf_OCVFxYSuF5do0rVv3s0NXX63748kLAH mcDBlzv4TCgMvYRC1Uk.7EfSb85ZdIn6V7Ls- X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/11.3.2 YahooMailWebService/0.8.105.279950 Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 11:10:14 -0700 (PDT) From: David Brownell Subject: Re: [PATCH] pio: add arch specific gpio_is_valid() function To: Eric Miao , Ryan Mallon Cc: Nicolas Ferre , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, avictor.za@gmail.com, bn@niasdigital.com, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org In-Reply-To: <4C85BEFD.402@bluewatersys.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --- On Mon, 9/6/10, Ryan Mallon wrote: > > The intent of my patch was to keep gpio_is_valid > simple, but add > a simple check for architectures where the base gpio is not > zero. Will > wait and see what David has to say. NAK still. You're trying to abuse gpio_is_valid(), which I see no need to support. In terms of GPIO framework architecture, zero is the first GPIO in all cases, and is always a valid GPIO number, even if it's not requestable/swritable/readable on a given board. Whether it's usable on a given platform depends on whether a GPIO controller is registered which claims numbers 0..N ... (assuming gpiolib in use).