--- On Wed, 6/23/10, Jon Povey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 9:46 PM
> Ryan Mallon wrote:
>
> > If we strip my patch back to just introducing
> gpio_request_cansleep,
> > which would be used in any driver where all of the
> calls are
> > gpio_(set/get)_cansleep, and make gpio_request only
> allow non-sleeping
> > gpios then incorrect use of gpios would be caught at
> request time and
> > returned to the caller as an error.
>
> It seems like a good idea to catch these at request time.
> There is support in the API for this already
> (gpio_cansleep), but driver writers are not steered towards
> checking and thinking in these ways by the current API or
>
> gpio_request_cansleep would be the same as current
> gpio_request
I wonder if, by the time I catch up on this
ever-extending email thread
... someone else will have noted that
because gpio_request() can now poke the GPIO
chip, that call might actually need to sleep.
So there'd be a difference between the two
calls:? one would *NEED* to be called in a
sleepable thread context, vs. that just being
well advised (e.g. as part of board setup in
arch init code after tasking is working)...
So that couldn't work quite that way.