Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 09:03:11 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: gonzo@freebsd.org, freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gpiobus_hinted_child >32 pins support, pin_getname method, and gpio-sysctl bridge patch Message-ID: <E7C5ED5C-7120-4B69-9146-D9CC7A8E14C2@kientzle.com> In-Reply-To: <8CDAB51C-14A0-42F0-8E16-43A3EABA2703@bsdimp.com> References: <20120819.171723.523519054460575158.hrs@allbsd.org> <8CDAB51C-14A0-42F0-8E16-43A3EABA2703@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 19, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Warner Losh wrote: >=20 > In general, I like this code in the context of the current GPIO = framework. I've been growing dissatisfied with the current GPIO = framework, however, and some of my comments reflect that more than any = comments about this specific code. I noticed that Linux on BeagleBone does not simply number all pins as we do. Pins are identified by two numbers: a unit number and a pin number. The AM3358 SoC has a couple of GPIO modules, so this makes it pretty natural to map hardware diagrams (which refer to "pin 13 of GPIO module 1") to software.=20 I agree with Warner that masks are probably a bad idea at the framework level. But this all may have to wait for "gpioNG". Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E7C5ED5C-7120-4B69-9146-D9CC7A8E14C2>