[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241017141605.GA242458@rigel>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 22:16:05 +0800
From: Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/8] gpio: cdev: go back to storing debounce period in
the GPIO descriptor
On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 04:13:14PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 2:44 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 10:14:11AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
> > >
> > > @@ -1047,7 +925,7 @@ static int debounce_setup(struct line *line, unsigned int debounce_period_us)
> > > /* try hardware */
> > > ret = gpiod_set_debounce(line->desc, debounce_period_us);
> > > if (!ret) {
> > > - line_set_debounce_period(line, debounce_period_us);
> > > + WRITE_ONCE(line->desc->debounce_period_us, debounce_period_us);
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> >
> > Not related to this change, but this check looks redundant to me - the same
> > is performed where debounce_setup() is called.
> >
> > Want a patch to remove it?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Kent.
>
> Sure! Can you rebase it on top of my series?
>
Will do - once patch 8 is sorted - so v5?
Cheers,
Kent.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists