On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 09:17 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Andrew Jeffery <andrew@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > GPIO state reset tolerance is implemented in gpiolib through the > > addition of a new pinconf parameter. With that, some renaming of helpers > > is done to clarify the scope of the already existing > > gpiochip_line_is_persistent(), as it's now ambiguous as to whether that > > means on suspend, reset or both. > > Isn't it most reasonable to say persistance covers both cases, reset > and/or sleep? This seems a bit like overdefined. I definitely had some internal debate about that. I erred on the side of avoiding potential change in expectations for the arizona. If you consider that overdefined then I'm happy to go the other way. > > So can we say that is this flag is set, the hardware and driver should > do its best to preserve the value across any system disruptions. > > We can change the wording of course, patches welcome for that. Yep. > > But do we really need to distinguish the cases of disruption and > whether we cover up for them or not? > > I would say we can deal with that the day we have a system with > two register bits (or similar) where you can select to preserve across > sleep, reset, one or the other, AND there is also a usecase such that > a user wants to preserve the value across reset but not suspend or > vice versa. > > I suspect that will not happen. A very reasonable approach. Cheers for the feedback. Andrew
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
