Re: [Bulk] Re: [-mm patch 1/4] GPIO framework for AVR32

[David Brownell]

> We originally had at91_set_gpio_direction() in the AT91 GPIO layer, and
> that seemed to cause confusion  (eg, do I pass a 1 or 0 to enable output
> mode?)

I was thinking the __bitwise annotation on GPIO_IN and GPIO_OUT should
address that problem, but for some reason it isn't doing that.  I must
be doing something wrong; even "sparse" isn't warning when passing a
bogus parameter.


> So I'd personally prefer to keep gpio_set_input() and
> gpio_set_output().  (alternative is "enable" instead of "set").
> I think it's more readable.

To be clear ... having two different function calls is a brand
new proposal.  :)

Agreed on readable, and I do recall the problem.  If I can't get
the __bitwise annotation to behave, that's how I'll do it.

- Dave


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