[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130124121726.GQ4955@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:17:30 +0800
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Stijn Devriendt <highguy@...il.com>
Cc: Roland Stigge <stigge@...com.de>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
grant.likely@...retlab.ca, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
w.sang@...gutronix.de, jbe@...gutronix.de, plagnioj@...osoft.com,
daniel-gl@....net, rmallon@...il.com, sr@...x.de,
wg@...ndegger.com, mark.rutland@....com, nicolas.ferre@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6 v14] gpio: Add block gpio to several gpio drivers
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 01:02:38PM +0100, Stijn Devriendt wrote:
> As a fictive example, consider the i2c-bitbang driver, which you could optimize
> by using block-gpio with sda/scl in a single block. By offering the
> block-gpio API
> even when you cannot set all bits at once, you could cause timing issues.
> You might be toggling the clock line before pushing out data, for example.
> The same holds below, for a driver that has separate hi/lo bits.
If there's a strict ordering requirement on updates then I would expect
a user to explictly code that in hardware otherwise there may be
hardware level issues with unpredictable results; besides in general it
seems silly to force users to open code both versions if they don't want
to rely on this API.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists