Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/4] gpio: Adds GPIO driver support for Armada100
Hi Prafulla,
I checked datasheet and for most GPIOs, AF1 is given as GPIO but for few its not, so adding a glue logic to check for specific GPIOs wont be a good idea. That's the reason i thought its good to keep MFP out of this. Please give suggestions.
correcting my previous message, I meant AF0. adding to this.. I checked Linux kernel source and they are simply validating if gpio number is within max limits so request returns 0.
And you told me to use MAX_MFP instead of using ARMD_MAX_GPIO, but MAX_MFP is defined lesser than the actual number of GPIO e.g. in case of armada100 MAX_MFP is defined 117 whereas max GPIOs are around 123.
Please give me some suggestion.
Regards, Ajay Bhargav
-----Original Message----- From: Ajay Bhargav [mailto:ajay.bhargav@einfochips.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 3:59 PM To: Prafulla Wadaskar Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de; Ashish Karkare; Prabhanjan Sarnaik Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] gpio: Adds GPIO driver support for Armada100
Hi Prafulla,
I checked datasheet and for most GPIOs, AF1 is given as GPIO but for
few
its not, so adding a glue logic to check for specific GPIOs wont be a
good idea.
That's the reason i thought its good to keep MFP out of this. Please
give suggestions.
correcting my previous message, I meant AF0. adding to this.. I checked Linux kernel source and they are simply validating if gpio number is within max limits so request returns 0.
And you told me to use MAX_MFP instead of using ARMD_MAX_GPIO, but MAX_MFP is defined lesser than the actual number of GPIO e.g. in case of armada100 MAX_MFP is defined 117 whereas max GPIOs are around 123.
I will check and let you know.
Regards.. Prafulla . .
Hi Ajay,
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Ajay Bhargav ajay.bhargav@einfochips.com wrote:
Hi Prafulla,
I checked datasheet and for most GPIOs, AF1 is given as GPIO but for few its not, so adding a glue logic to check for specific GPIOs wont be a good idea. That's the reason i thought its good to keep MFP out of this. Please give suggestions.
correcting my previous message, I meant AF0. adding to this.. I checked Linux kernel source and they are simply validating if gpio number is within max limits so request returns 0.
And you told me to use MAX_MFP instead of using ARMD_MAX_GPIO, but MAX_MFP is defined lesser than the actual number of GPIO e.g. in case of armada100 MAX_MFP is defined 117 whereas max GPIOs are around 123.
Please give me some suggestion.
Actually, as uboot target at small size, I tend to don't add too much logic to it. So there is no need to check the "MAX", if one need to set the gpio, he should notice by himself, the gpio number he specified is a valid gpio address in the system.
Best regards, Lei
participants (3)
-
Ajay Bhargav -
Lei Wen -
Prafulla Wadaskar