David, you convinced me:-) I'll redo the patch. Just one comment:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, David Brownell wrote:
> On Saturday 09 February 2008, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
>
> > And when those platforms share drivers, problems
> > arise. And the simple and efficient NO_IRQ notion, that would fis
On Saturday 09 February 2008, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, David Brownell wrote:
>
> > Actually I thought that what you needed was an is_valid_gpio();
> > your motivation was that you needed a predicate.
> >
> > The problem I have with a #define for a single such invalid GPI
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, David Brownell wrote:
> On Thursday 31 January 2008, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > As discussed on i2c mailing list with David Brownell, and number
> > outside of the 0...MAX_INT range is invalid as a GPIO number.
> > Define a macro, similar to NO_IRQ, to be used as a delibe
On Thursday 31 January 2008, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> As discussed on i2c mailing list with David Brownell, and number
> outside of the 0...MAX_INT range is invalid as a GPIO number.
> Define a macro, similar to NO_IRQ, to be used as a deliberate
> invalid GPIO, rather than defining a is_vali
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> As discussed on i2c mailing list with David Brownell, and number
> outside of the 0...MAX_INT range is invalid as a GPIO number.
> Define a macro, similar to NO_IRQ, to be used as a deliberate
> invalid GPIO, rather than defining a is_valid_gpio(
As discussed on i2c mailing list with David Brownell, and number
outside of the 0...MAX_INT range is invalid as a GPIO number.
Define a macro, similar to NO_IRQ, to be used as a deliberate
invalid GPIO, rather than defining a is_valid_gpio() macro.
Signed-off-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <[EMAIL PROT
6 matches
Mail list logo
