Re: [-mm patch 1/4] GPIO framework for AVR32

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11/8/06, David Brownell <[email protected]> wrote:
> The request/free calls aren't really arch-specific, are they?

Remember that where one platform may use numbers 32-159 for GPIOs, another
might use 0-71 ... GPIO numbering has an arch-specific core, but whether
a given board adds more GPIOs from an FPGA or other non-SOC chip is even
more variable than "arch-specific".

Sorry, I'm having trouble expressing myself clearly today ;-)

I didn't mean to suggest that the interpretation of the numbers or the
gpio_request() implementation should be arch-independent. I was merely
suggesting that the _concept_ of requesting GPIO pins before using
them, keeping track of which pins have been allocated before, isn't
something inherently arch-specific.

I'm all for leaving it up to each arch or possibly each sub-arch how
to implement the request/free functions. They can even be implemented
as no-op stubs that always succeed for all I care. But I don't think
any arch or platform will really have much trouble with implementing
some kind of "please reserve this gpio pin represented as an unsigned
int for me" call.

> I implement the actual allocation mechanism using atomic bitops.

That's a fair way to implement it, sure; but if you look at e.g. how
OMAP does it, the bitmap is inside a per-controller structure.  When
one chip has two different _types_ of GPIO controller, and multiple
instances of one (plus restrictions applying to specific instances),
the notion of an arch-neutral implementation there seems unworkable.

Agreed. The avr32 implementation also uses a per-controller bitmap and
supports any number of instances (up to a compile-time limit since it
is initialized too early to be able to allocate any memory.) It
doesn't support different type of controllers though; that would
require some kind of demuxing and should probably be avoided on
platforms that don't need it.

Haavard
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux