>> And I think I am saying that we already *have* it generalized for >> the GPIOs but only if we remove that renumbering function! >> >> Consider again that the U_CLASS lookup of a GPIO simply matches >> versus the range in each uclass data (gpio base and count). That search >> doesn't care about their order within the UCLASS_GPIO list. >> >> (Never mind that the renumbering breaks the association of the device >> base register and pin ranges as set up by the bind/probe code!) > > I wonder if we could do something similar then, where there is a > default numbering if none is provided, but the GPIO devices are able > to 'request' particular number ranges?
I think we are talking past each other now. Isn't that already in place? One can already register a device with a range in the UCLASS so that the lookup happens and matches to a particular device instance. (But only assuming they are NOT renumbered.) What am I missing here? Thanks, jdl _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
