Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1759403AbZASOUu@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1759403AbZASOUu (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:20:50 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753541AbZASOUF
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:20:05 -0500
Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.44.30]:53462 "EHLO
	yx-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1757483AbZASOTm convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:19:42 -0500
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=HgIIBDhjXfJZqmRzqTChwHVSJulhC1anN18SYtPNg5DsYVi+gTkoLhRsf4ixQlEBl2
         Q01YEQUiEgMr9KNNU3gCb6WsC3FJzY8XlJ5LvSQks8x7hEsAgJy1M7Xx5gvyPoz7hZjy
         Vb1RMfD3BEBh+tZGOmfirOzI5BTZfTZhm/JaY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20090119100342.GA16400@pengutronix.de>
References: <12321862383405-git-send-email-jayakumar.lkml@gmail.com>
	 <20090119100342.GA16400@pengutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:19:40 +0800
Message-ID: <45a44e480901190619i18749c75jaa2d4606da251921@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2.6.28 1/2] gpiolib: add set/get batch v4
From: Jaya Kumar <jayakumar.lkml@gmail.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Uwe_Kleine=2DK=F6nig?= 
	<u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>, Eric Miao <eric.miao@marvell.com>,
       Paulius Zaleckas <paulius.zaleckas@teltonika.lt>,
       Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
       Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
       linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk,
       linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3169
Lines: 87

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Uwe Kleine-K?nig
<u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> Hi Jaya,
>
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 05:57:17PM +0800, Jaya Kumar wrote:
>> Hi friends,
>>
>> This is v4 of batch support for gpiolib. Thanks to David Brownell, Eric Miao,
>> David Hylands, Robin, Ben, Jamie and others for prior feedback. The post for
>> v3 summarized the previous discussion. Since then the changes I've made are:
>> - split the patches into generic and arch specific
> IMHO this should be three patches: "gpiolib", "pxa" and "am300epd".
> Well, ...

Hi Uwe,

Ok, will do.

>
>> +[OPTIONAL] Spinlock-Safe GPIO Batch access
> Is it really spinlock safe in general?  Or only if gpio_cansleep(gpio)
> if false for each gpio to get or set?

You are correct to raise this issue. It is only spinlock safe if
chip->cansleep is false. Initially, I wasn't sure what to do. The
original gpio set/get_value() just does;
        WARN_ON(extra_checks && chip->can_sleep);
and it is documented as:

"
Spinlock-Safe GPIO access
-------------------------
<snip>
return zero.  Also, using these calls for GPIOs that can't safely be accessed
without sleeping (see below) is an error.
"

I will change this in the batch code to return an error if can_sleep
is detected on any involved gpio_chip.

>
>> +static int __generic_gpio_set_batch(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset,
>> +                                     u32 values, u32 bitmask, int width)
> IMHO a better name is __gpio_set_batch_generic (or
> __gpiolib_set_batch_generic?), YMMV.

Agreed. Will change.

>
>> +int __gpio_set_batch(unsigned gpio, u32 values, u32 bitmask, int bitwidth)
> Sometimes your width parameter is called bitwidth, sometimes width.  I'd
> like to have that consistant.

Ok, you're right. I'll fix this.

>
> While talking about this parameter.  I don't really like it, because you
> can calculate it from bitmask.  In an earlier mail you write:

Agreed.

>
>        bitwidth (needed to iterate and map to chip ngpios) could be
>        calculated from bitmask, but that involves iteratively counting
>        bits from the mask, so we would have to do 800*600 bit counts.
>        Unless, we do ugly things like cache the previous bitwidth/mask
>        and compare against the current caller arguments. Given that the
>        bitwidth would typically be a fixed value, I believe it is more
>        intuitive for the caller to provide it, ...
>
> I think it's easier than that.  bitwidth is just fls(bitmask) which
> should be efficient enough not to bother the programmer.  If bitmask is
> constant it's even the compiler that does the work here.
>

That is a good point. I agree that width is ugly in the main API. It
is just fls(mask) and I now realize that this is an inline so you're
right it would get taken care of by the compiler. fls is checked with
__constant_fls first. Beauty! Thanks Uwe! I'll make these changes.

Thanks,
jaya
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/