Re: [PATCH v2] gpiolib: add hogs support for machine code

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > 2018-04-26 14:07 GMT+02:00 Linus Walleij : >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:30 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >> >>> Board files constitute a significant part of the users of the

Re: [PATCH v2] gpiolib: add hogs support for machine code

2018-04-26 14:07 GMT+02:00 Linus Walleij : > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:30 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > >> Board files constitute a significant part of the users of the legacy >> GPIO framework. In many cases they only export a line and set its >>

Re: [PATCH v2] gpiolib: add hogs support for machine code

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:00 PM, Christian Lamparter wrote: > The problem is that unlike native gpio-controllers, pinctrls need > to have a "pin/gpio range" defined before any gpio-hogs can be added. Indeed. But the primary use case (correct me if I am wrong Bartosz) is to

Re: [PATCH v2] gpiolib: add hogs support for machine code

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:30 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > Board files constitute a significant part of the users of the legacy > GPIO framework. In many cases they only export a line and set its > desired value. We could use GPIO hogs for that like we do for DT and > ACPI but

Re: [PATCH v2] gpiolib: add hogs support for machine code

On Dienstag, 10. April 2018 22:30:28 CEST Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > Board files constitute a significant part of the users of the legacy > GPIO framework. In many cases they only export a line and set its > desired value. We could use GPIO hogs for that like we do for DT and > ACPI but there's

[PATCH v2] gpiolib: add hogs support for machine code

Board files constitute a significant part of the users of the legacy GPIO framework. In many cases they only export a line and set its desired value. We could use GPIO hogs for that like we do for DT and ACPI but there's no support for that in machine code. This patch proposes to extend the