[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121205093027.GK14363@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 09:30:27 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@...sung.com>
Cc: 'Andrew Morton' <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
'LKML' <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
'Florian Tobias Schandinat' <FlorianSchandinat@....de>,
'Marko Katic' <dromede@...il.com>,
'Grant Likely' <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
'Richard Purdie' <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] backlight: corgi_lcd: Use gpio_set_value_cansleep()
to avoid WARN_ON
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 09:59:07AM +0900, Jingoo Han wrote:
> - if (gpio_is_valid(lcd->gpio_backlight_cont))
> - gpio_set_value(lcd->gpio_backlight_cont, cont);
> + if (gpio_is_valid(lcd->gpio_backlight_cont)) {
> + if (gpio_cansleep(lcd->gpio_backlight_cont))
> + gpio_set_value_cansleep(lcd->gpio_backlight_cont, cont);
> + else
> + gpio_set_value(lcd->gpio_backlight_cont, cont);
> + }
Why not simply:
+ if (gpio_is_valid(lcd->gpio_backlight_cont))
+ gpio_set_value_cansleep(lcd->gpio_backlight_cont, cont);
If you read the gpiolib code and documentation, what you will realise is
that the two calls are identical except for the "might_sleep_if()" in
gpio_set_value_cansleep(). You will also note that gpiolib itself _only_
calls gpio_set_value_cansleep() without checking gpio_cansleep() in
contexts where sleeping is possible. So if it's good enough for gpiolib,
it should be good enough here.
--
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