[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100621050957.GA23094@pengutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 07:09:57 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc: Ryan Mallon <ryan@...ewatersys.com>,
David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
gregkh@...e.de, linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ext-jani.1.nikula@...ia.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: gpiolib and sleeping gpios
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 07:40:46PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > > And they will trigger runtime warnings, and
> > > thus eventually get fixed.
> > \
> > }
> >
> > err = gpio_request(some_gpio, "some_gpio",
> > GPIOF_NO_SLEEP);
>
>
> NAK ... keep it simple. Such flags are
> clearly not necessary...
>
> I understand that some folk are bothered
> by concepts/frameworks that seem "too simple"
> and thus want to complexify them. In this
> case I am in a position to help avoid that.
> Complexity is not a virtue.
I'm against such an additional flag, too. But I still think merging
gpio_get_value and gpio_get_value_cansleep is nice.
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