Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 07:27:09 +0200
From: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= 
	<u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To: Ryan Mallon <ryan@bluewatersys.com>
Cc: linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       David Brownell <dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net>, gregkh@suse.de,
       ext-jani.1.nikula@nokia.com
Subject: Re: gpiolib and sleeping gpios
Message-ID: <20100618052709.GA6392@pengutronix.de>
References: <4C1A980F.8080908@bluewatersys.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <4C1A980F.8080908@bluewatersys.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1163
Lines: 27

Hi Ryan,

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 09:47:59AM +1200, Ryan Mallon wrote:
> Then all drivers can just call gpio_(set/get)_value and any attempts to
> use sleeping gpios from an non-sleeping context will be caught by the
> might_sleep_if check. Is there something I am missing about this?
The downside is that you change the semantic of gpio_get_value (and
gpio_set_value I assume?).  But as calling gpio_get_value with a gpio
that gpio_cansleep() is an error anyhow, so I think that's OK.  The big
pro is that the API is simplified.
 
> I can prepare a patch which combines the non-sleeping and sleeping
> variants, but I wanted to check that I'm not missing something
> fundamental first.
I will happily look at such a patch and give my comments.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K?nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
--
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/