Re: [RFC 2.6.27 1/1] gpiolib: add support for batch set of pins

2008-11-27 Thread Sam Ravnborg
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:51:27AM -0500, Jaya Kumar wrote:
 On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:15 PM, David Brownell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  On Tuesday 25 November 2008, Eric Miao wrote:
  Using a bit mask will be more generic if the GPIOs are not contiguous.
  Yet I still doubt this will be generic enough to be added to gpiolib.
 
  My expectation for this kind of mechanism was that systems who need
  to craft another parallel bus out of GPIO pins would be doing this
  with some system-specific utility functions.
 
  So my is it generic enough question is more at the level of Are
  there enough Linux systems that need this sort of thing to justify
  generic support?.  I happen not to have come across the need for
  such ganged access from Linux (yet).  Whereas I've yet to use non-x86
  Linux systems that don't need to manipulate individual GPIO pins...
 
 I have come across the following scenarios where a bus set of gpio is useful:
 - Broadsheet E-Ink controller (uses 16-bit data bus over GPIO)
 framebuffer device (this patch is for this)
 - Apollo/Hecuba E-Ink controller (uses 8-bit data bus over GPIO)
 framebuffer device
 - 8-bit parallel IO matrix LCD controllers, such as the Samsung KS108,
 also Hitachi, etc

We have such a system at work. And we need fast acces to the gpio pins
when updating the LCD.
I have not written/looked to deep at the code I just recall it was
a bit messy and not something I would be proud of submitting to any ML.

Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-embedded in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: [RFC 2.6.27 1/1] gpiolib: add support for batch set of pins

2008-11-27 Thread Sam Ravnborg
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 07:43:31AM +0800, Jaya Kumar wrote:
 On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 4:01 AM, Sam Ravnborg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:51:27AM -0500, Jaya Kumar wrote:
  On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:15 PM, David Brownell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   On Tuesday 25 November 2008, Eric Miao wrote:
   Using a bit mask will be more generic if the GPIOs are not contiguous.
   Yet I still doubt this will be generic enough to be added to gpiolib.
  
   My expectation for this kind of mechanism was that systems who need
   to craft another parallel bus out of GPIO pins would be doing this
   with some system-specific utility functions.
  
   So my is it generic enough question is more at the level of Are
   there enough Linux systems that need this sort of thing to justify
   generic support?.  I happen not to have come across the need for
   such ganged access from Linux (yet).  Whereas I've yet to use non-x86
   Linux systems that don't need to manipulate individual GPIO pins...
 
  I have come across the following scenarios where a bus set of gpio is 
  useful:
  - Broadsheet E-Ink controller (uses 16-bit data bus over GPIO)
  framebuffer device (this patch is for this)
  - Apollo/Hecuba E-Ink controller (uses 8-bit data bus over GPIO)
  framebuffer device
  - 8-bit parallel IO matrix LCD controllers, such as the Samsung KS108,
  also Hitachi, etc
 
  We have such a system at work. And we need fast acces to the gpio pins
  when updating the LCD.
  I have not written/looked to deep at the code I just recall it was
  a bit messy and not something I would be proud of submitting to any ML.
 
 Sam
 
 
 Okay. Please help me understand in case I misunderstood. Are you
 saying the code that I posted is too messy? To me, actually I am proud
 of it. :-) But if some parts look messy, I'm happy to work on
 improving it. I will need some advice though and please advise me on
 which parts look messy.

Nope - the code we use at work is too messy. What you posted looks
much better.

Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-embedded in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html