You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 20, 2023. It is now read-only.
For example, running i2c-list on a C.H.I.P. as the chip user doesn't print the GPIO lines because the allwinner drive fails to load. It fails to load because it tries to open /dev/mem.
From the user perspective it shouldn't matter, the user can still likely use sysfs gpio support (pending right udev rules) and the pins should still be aliased properly. This means registering the pin aliases when the driver fails to load, which is kind of weird in some ways as a driver failing to load should not have side effects. An option is to split the allwinner driver in two.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This makes it much more generic and extensible. This will enable addressing
issue #125.
Refuse registering an high and low priority pins with different numbers but same
name and reverse.
maruel
changed the title
CPU drivers should expose pins even if can't expose due to lack of privilege
allwinner: CPU drivers should expose pins even if can't expose due to lack of privilege
Nov 9, 2018
For example, running
i2c-list
on a C.H.I.P. as thechip
user doesn't print the GPIO lines because theallwinner
drive fails to load. It fails to load because it tries to open/dev/mem
.From the user perspective it shouldn't matter, the user can still likely use sysfs gpio support (pending right udev rules) and the pins should still be aliased properly. This means registering the pin aliases when the driver fails to load, which is kind of weird in some ways as a driver failing to load should not have side effects. An option is to split the allwinner driver in two.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: