[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151119171545.GF25345@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 18:15:45 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>
Cc: Cory Tusar <cory.tusar@...1solutions.com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
pawel.moll@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk, galak@...eaurora.org, agust@...x.de,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jic23@...nel.org, broonie@...nel.org,
afd@...com, Chris.Healy@....aero, Keith.Vennel@....aero,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] misc: eeprom_93xx46: Add support for a GPIO
'select' line.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 06:52:57PM +0200, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> On 19.11.2015 16:18, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >>> #ifdef CONFIG_OF
> >>> +static void select_assert(void *context)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct eeprom_93xx46_dev *edev = context;
> >>> +
> >>> + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(gpio_to_desc(edev->pdata->select_gpio), 1);
> >>
> >> I would suggest to use gpio_set_value()
> >
> > Could you explain why?
> >
> > Maybe this gpio is on an SPI GPIO expander?
>
> My point is that gpio_*() interface, gpio_set_value() or
> gpio_set_value_cansleep(), might be preferred is this particular case.
Ah, O.K, yes, avoid the gpio_to_desc() call.
Agreed.
Andrew
--
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