Re: [PATCH v3] Add bt8xxgpio driver

[David Brownell]

On Thursday 10 July 2008, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > --- /dev/null	1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
> > +++ linux-next/drivers/gpio/bt8xxgpio.c	2008-07-10 19:05:56.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -0,0 +1,348 @@
> [...]
> > +static int bt8xxgpio_gpio_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *gpio, unsigned nr)
> > +{
> > +	struct bt8xxgpio *bg = container_of(gpio, struct bt8xxgpio, gpio);
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +	u32 outen, data;
> > +
> > +	spin_lock_irqsave(&bg->lock, flags);
> 
> Why all those irq variants? I can't see interrupts anywhere. May gpio call this 
> from irq?

Not that routine (see Documentation/gpio.txt where
that's specified) ... but other using the same lock.

When setting GPIO direction, spin_lock_irq() style
calls are appropriate (but this isn't wrong).

The gpio_{get,set}_value() accessors may be called
from IRQ context, so they need to save/restor the
IRQ flags.


> some flushing of posted values here?

See Documentation/gpio.txt:

+ Note that these operations include I/O barriers on platforms
+ which need to use them; drivers don't need to add them explicitly.

That's the key thing:  drivers using I/O calls should
not need to insert bus or platform specific calls to
make sure the calls take effect.


Also:

> +	return !!(val & (1 << nr));

GPIO values are zero/nonzero, not zero/one.  So the "!!"
can be removed.

- 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/