user/sven/linux.git/include/linux/gpio.h, branch v3.10.32

Convert selectors of GENERIC_GPIO to GPIOLIB

2013-04-16T09:47:14Z

GENERIC_GPIO is now equivalent to GPIOLIB and features that depended on GENERIC_GPIO can now depend on GPIOLIB to allow removal of this option. Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot Acked-by: Linus Walleij Acked-by: Grant Likely

gpio: devm_gpio_* support should not depend on GPIOLIB

2013-01-22T09:23:35Z

Some architectures (e.g. blackfin) provide gpio API without requiring GPIOLIB support (ARCH_WANT_OPTIONAL_GPIOLIB). devm_gpio_* functions should also work for these architectures, since they do not really depend on GPIOLIB. Add a new option GPIO_DEVRES (enabled by default) to control the build of devres.c. It also removes the empty version of devm_gpio_* functions for !GENERIC_GPIO build from linux/gpio.h, and moves the function declarations from asm-generic/gpio.h into linux/gpio.h. Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij

gpiolib: rename pin range arguments

2012-11-21T09:07:48Z

To be crystal clear on what the arguments mean in this funtion dealing with both GPIO and PIN ranges with confusing naming, we now have gpio_offset and pin_offset and we are on the clear that these are offsets into the specific GPIO and pin controller respectively. The GPIO chip itself will of course keep track of the base offset into the global GPIO number space. Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij

gpiolib: let gpiochip_add_pin_range() specify offset

2012-11-21T07:55:03Z

Like with commit 3c739ad0df5eb41cd7adad879eda6aa09879eb76 it is not always enough to specify all the pins of a gpio_chip from offset zero to be added to a pin map range, since the mapping from GPIO to pin controller may not be linear at all, but need to be broken into a few consecutive sub-ranges or 1-pin entries for complicated cases. The ranges may also be sparse. This alters the signature of the function to accept offsets into both the GPIO-chip local pinspace and the pin controller local pinspace. Reviewed-by: Stephen Warren Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij

gpiolib: iron out include ladder mistakes

2012-11-11T18:06:07Z

The <*/gpio.h> includes are updated again: now we need to account for the problem introduced by commit: 595679a8038584df7b9398bf34f61db3c038bfea "gpiolib: fix up function prototypes etc" Actually we need static inlines in include/asm-generic/gpio.h as well since we may have GPIOLIB but not PINCTRL. Make sure to move all the CONFIG_PINCTRL business to the end of the file so we are sure we have declared struct gpio_chip. And we need to keep the static inlines in but here for the !CONFIG_GENERIC_GPIO case, and then we may as well throw in a few warnings like the other prototypes there, if someone would have the bad taste of compiling without GENERIC_GPIO even. Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij

gpiolib: separation of pin concerns

2012-11-11T18:06:07Z

The fact that of_gpiochip_add_pin_range() and gpiochip_add_pin_range() share too much code is fragile and will invariably mean that bugs need to be fixed in two places instead of one. So separate the concerns of gpiolib.c and gpiolib-of.c and have the latter call the former as back-end. This is necessary also when going forward with other device descriptions such as ACPI. This is done by: - Adding a return code to gpiochip_add_pin_range() so we can reliably check whether this succeeds. - Get rid of the custom of_pinctrl_add_gpio_range() from pinctrl. Instead create of_pinctrl_get() to just retrive the pin controller per se from an OF node. This composite function was just begging to be deleted, it was way to purpose-specific. - Use pinctrl_dev_get_name() to get the name of the retrieved pin controller and use that to call back into the generic gpiochip_add_pin_range(). Now the pin range is only allocated and tied to a pin controller from the core implementation in gpiolib.c. Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij

gpiolib: fix up function prototypes etc

2012-11-11T18:06:04Z

Commit 69e1601bca88809dc118abd1becb02c15a02ec71 "gpiolib: provide provision to register pin ranges" Got most of it's function prototypes wrong, so fix this up by: - Moving the void declarations into static inlines in (previously the actual prototypes were declared here...) - Declare the gpiochip_add_pin_range() and gpiochip_remove_pin_ranges() functions in together with the pin range struct declaration itself. - Actually only implement these very functions in gpiolib.c if CONFIG_PINCTRL is set. - Additionally export the symbols since modules will need to be able to do this. Reviewed-by: Stephen Warren Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij

gpiolib: provide provision to register pin ranges

2012-11-11T18:06:00Z

pinctrl subsystem needs gpio chip base to prepare set of gpio pin ranges, which a given pinctrl driver can handle. This is important to handle pinctrl gpio request calls in order to program a given pin properly for gpio operation. As gpio base is allocated dynamically during gpiochip registration, presently there exists no clean way to pass this information to the pinctrl subsystem. After few discussions from [1], it was concluded that may be gpio controller reporting the pin range it supports, is a better way than pinctrl subsystem directly registering it. [1] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/184816 Cc: Grant Likely Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar Signed-off-by: Shiraz Hashim [Edited documentation a bit] Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij

gpio: fix bits conflict for gpio flags

2012-07-05T13:04:10Z

The bit 2 and 3 in GPIO flag are allocated for the flag OPEN_DRAIN/OPEN_SOURCE. These bits are reused for the flag EXPORT/EXPORT_CHANGEABLE and so creating conflict. Fix this conflict by assigning bit 4 and 5 for the flag EXPORT/EXPORT_CHANGEABLE. Signed-off-by: Laxman Dewangan Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij

gpiolib: Implement devm_gpio_request_one()

2012-05-18T22:48:35Z

Allow drivers to use the modern request and configure idiom together with devres. As with plain gpio_request() and gpio_request_one() we can't implement the old school version in terms of _one() as this would force the explicit selection of a direction in gpio_request() which could break systems if we pick the wrong one. Implementing devm_gpio_request_one() in terms of devm_gpio_request() would needlessly complicate things or lead to duplication from the unmanaged version depending on how it's done. Signed-off-by: Mark Brown Acked-by: Linus Walleij Signed-off-by: Grant Likely