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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Aug 19, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > > 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. I agree with Warner that masks are probably a bad idea at the framework level. But this all may have to wait for "gpioNG". Timhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E7C5ED5C-7120-4B69-9146-D9CC7A8E14C2>