[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 21:51:08 +0200
From: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
CC: Ionut Nicu <ioan.nicu.ext@....com>,
Peter Korsgaard <peter.korsgaard@...co.com>,
Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@....com>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c-mux-gpio: test if the gpio can sleep
On 10/10/2013 09:43 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:46:41AM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>
>>> + if (gpio_cansleep(gpio))
>>> + gpio_set_value_cansleep(gpio, val & (1 << i));
>>> + else
>>> + gpio_set_value(gpio, val & (1 << i));
>>
>> The proper way to do this is just always use the _cansleep() version.
>> gpio_set_value() only works for chips which do not sleep,
>> gpio_set_value_cansleep() works for both those who do sleep and those who do
>> not.
>
> To the gpio-list: Has it been considered to have sth. like
> gpio_set_value and gpio_set_value_nosleep? I'd think it makes more sense
> to have the specific function have the specific name.
It has been a few times, but I think the conclusion has always been that it is
now too late to invert the semantics of gpio_set_value(). If you want to look
up the discussions the keyword is gpio_set_value_atomic().
- Lars
--
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