[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45a44e480811291504l30ed8101h9ab9b5333fb33f76@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 07:04:52 +0800
From: "Jaya Kumar" <jayakumar.lkml@...il.com>
To: "David Brownell" <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc: "Paulius Zaleckas" <paulius.zaleckas@...tonika.lt>,
"Sam Ravnborg" <sam@...nborg.org>,
"Eric Miao" <eric.miao@...vell.com>,
"Haavard Skinnemoen" <hskinnemoen@...el.com>,
"Philipp Zabel" <philipp.zabel@...il.com>,
"Russell King" <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
"Ben Gardner" <bgardner@...tec.com>, "Greg KH" <greg@...ah.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
linux-fbdev-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 2.6.27 1/1] gpiolib: add support for batch set of pins
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 6:47 AM, David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> wrote:
>
> In terms of low level primitives, I've already commented
> that the "read" side is missing. An additional issue came
> to mind: the policy of using contiguous bits should not
> be mandated here. It doesn't need to be, either ... just
> pass a mask of valid bits, along with a mask of values.
>
Agreed. Will implement read side. I think I agree with Eric and you on
the bitmask now. It should not add much complexity, I think. I'll work
on adding it. Given that _bus() isn't appropriate anymore, how does
"gpio_set_values" and .sets sound and correspondingly gpio_get_values
and .gets?
Thanks,
jaya
--
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