gpio: Adds GPIO driver support for Armada100

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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ajay Bhargav [mailto:ajay.bhargav at einfochips.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 3:59 PM
To: Prafulla Wadaskar
Cc: u-boot at lists.denx.de; Ashish Karkare; Prabhanjan Sarnaik
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] gpio: Adds GPIO driver support for Armada100

Hi Prafulla,

Quoted 1 line

I checked datasheet and for most GPIOs, AF1 is given as GPIO but for

few

Quoted 1 line

its not, so adding a glue logic to check for specific GPIOs wont be a

good idea.

Quoted 1 line

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.

Hi Prafulla,

Quoted 3 lines

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.