[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100618052709.GA6392@pengutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 07:27:09 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Ryan Mallon <ryan@...ewatersys.com>
Cc: linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
gregkh@...e.de, ext-jani.1.nikula@...ia.com
Subject: Re: gpiolib and sleeping gpios
Hi Ryan,
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 09:47:59AM +1200, Ryan Mallon wrote:
> Then all drivers can just call gpio_(set/get)_value and any attempts to
> use sleeping gpios from an non-sleeping context will be caught by the
> might_sleep_if check. Is there something I am missing about this?
The downside is that you change the semantic of gpio_get_value (and
gpio_set_value I assume?). But as calling gpio_get_value with a gpio
that gpio_cansleep() is an error anyhow, so I think that's OK. The big
pro is that the API is simplified.
> I can prepare a patch which combines the non-sleeping and sleeping
> variants, but I wanted to check that I'm not missing something
> fundamental first.
I will happily look at such a patch and give my comments.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
--
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