On 25.10.2012 10:08, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Lee Jones <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Linus Walleij wrote: > (...) >>> Is biasing what you need to do? > (...) >>> All I really want is that platforms have a clear idea about >>> how and where the pins will be handled, and that if GPIO >>> and pinctrl handle the same lines, they need to interact. >>> >>> Yours, >>> Linus Walleij >> >> Friendly poke. > > I don't know how to respond to that? I asked a question about > what the intent of the patch was and the generic thinking > behind this approach and it remains unanswered. > > I think I have seen other patches doing the proper thing > for pinctrl-single by implementing the proper > pinctrl_request_gpio() > pinctrl_free_gpio() > pinctrl_gpio_direction_input() > pinctrl_gpio_direction_output() > in that very GPIO driver. > > So I suspect that this patch should be dropped, unless you > have some other compelling usecase to bring to the show?
I think so too. I misunderstood the concept of pinctrl in this area, thanks for taking the time of explaining this. Shortly after I worked on it, I was distracted by other topics so I didn't find time to continue. But once I will, I'll follow up here again. Thanks, Daniel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
