[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200711270926.30948.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:26:30 -0800
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: "eric miao" <eric.y.miao@...il.com>
Cc: "Linux Kernel list" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Felipe Balbi" <felipebalbi@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
"Bill Gatliff" <bgat@...lgatliff.com>,
"Haavard Skinnemoen" <hskinnemoen@...el.com>,
"Andrew Victor" <andrew@...people.com>,
"Tony Lindgren" <tony@...mide.com>,
"Jean Delvare" <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
"Kevin Hilman" <khilman@...sta.com>,
"Paul Mundt" <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
"Ben Dooks" <ben@...nity.fluff.org>
Subject: Re: [patch/rfc 1/4] GPIO implementation framework
Thanks, I'll be looking at it ... the one thing I strongly dislike is
this change:
On Tuesday 27 November 2007, eric miao wrote:
> 4. use a loop for "gpio_desc[]" instead of a loop for "gpio_chips[]" in
> gpiolib_show(), change is straight forward; since it is now per gpio
> based, the gpio_chip.dbg_show() is removed as well
That removes the ability to display all kinds of significant
chip-specific state ... like whether a given signal has active
pullups or pulldowns, uses open-drain signaling, and so forth.
It also makes access a lot slower ... e.g. rather than one
batch of I2C or SPI operations for all N signals on a chip,
it's got to do N batches.
Plus it just needlessly breaks existing code.
I'll put together a version without that problem.
- Dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists