[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080528101425.611e0145@hskinnemo-gx745.norway.atmel.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 10:14:25 +0200
From: Haavard Skinnemoen <haavard.skinnemoen@...el.com>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc: Ben Nizette <bn@...sdigital.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel@...32linux.org
Subject: Re: Latest gpio gumph
David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> wrote:
> - an avr32 patch, appended (no response on the avr32 list)
Sorry about the lack of response.
I'm not all that enthusiastic about this patch though...
> From: David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> Subject: AVR32: minor GPIO handling updates
>
> * gpio_direction_output() should disable the pullups just like
> at32_select_gpio(... AT32_GPIOF_OUTPUT) does, for consistency
> between those alternative initialization paths.
But then we need to keep track of whether pullups used to be enabled so
that we can re-enable it in gpio_direction_input(), don't we?
I can't see the harm of keeping the pullup enabled while the port is
configured as output. For consistency, I'd rather honor the pullup flag
in at32_select_gpio() regardless of AT32_GPIOF_OUTPUT.
> * On the odd chance some code uses a pin as a GPIO IRQ without
> calling gpio_request() or gpio_direction_input(), the debug
> dump should still show its pin status.
Hmm. I guess that makes sense, though I would be lying if I said I care
all that much. I think gpiolib is going pretty far to accommodate buggy
drivers that don't call gpio_request() as it is.
Haavard
--
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