Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c-mux-gpio: test if the gpio can sleep

[Lars-Peter Clausen]

On 10/10/2013 09:43 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:46:41AM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>
> > > +		if (gpio_cansleep(gpio))
> > > +			gpio_set_value_cansleep(gpio, val & (1 << i));
> > > +		else
> > > +			gpio_set_value(gpio, val & (1 << i));
> >
> > The proper way to do this is just always use the _cansleep() version.
> > gpio_set_value() only works for chips which do not sleep,
> > gpio_set_value_cansleep() works for both those who do sleep and those who do
> > not.
>
> To the gpio-list: Has it been considered to have sth. like
> gpio_set_value and gpio_set_value_nosleep? I'd think it makes more sense
> to have the specific function have the specific name.

It has been a few times, but I think the conclusion has always been that it is 
now too late to invert the semantics of gpio_set_value(). If you want to look 
up the discussions the keyword is gpio_set_value_atomic().

- Lars

--
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/