On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Jaya,
>
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 05:57:17PM +0800, Jaya Kumar wrote:
>> Hi friends,
>>
>> This is v4 of batch support for gpiolib. Thanks to David Brownell, Eric Miao,
>> David Hylands, Robin, Ben, Jamie and others for prior feedback. The post for
>> v3 summarized the previous discussion. Since then the changes I've made are:
>> - split the patches into generic and arch specific
> IMHO this should be three patches: "gpiolib", "pxa" and "am300epd".
> Well, ...
Hi Uwe,
Ok, will do.
>
>> +[OPTIONAL] Spinlock-Safe GPIO Batch access
> Is it really spinlock safe in general? Or only if gpio_cansleep(gpio)
> if false for each gpio to get or set?
You are correct to raise this issue. It is only spinlock safe if
chip->cansleep is false. Initially, I wasn't sure what to do. The
original gpio set/get_value() just does;
WARN_ON(extra_checks && chip->can_sleep);
and it is documented as:
"
Spinlock-Safe GPIO access
-------------------------
<snip>
return zero. Also, using these calls for GPIOs that can't safely be accessed
without sleeping (see below) is an error.
"
I will change this in the batch code to return an error if can_sleep
is detected on any involved gpio_chip.
>
>> +static int __generic_gpio_set_batch(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset,
>> + u32 values, u32 bitmask, int width)
> IMHO a better name is __gpio_set_batch_generic (or
> __gpiolib_set_batch_generic?), YMMV.
Agreed. Will change.
>
>> +int __gpio_set_batch(unsigned gpio, u32 values, u32 bitmask, int bitwidth)
> Sometimes your width parameter is called bitwidth, sometimes width. I'd
> like to have that consistant.
Ok, you're right. I'll fix this.
>
> While talking about this parameter. I don't really like it, because you
> can calculate it from bitmask. In an earlier mail you write:
Agreed.
>
> bitwidth (needed to iterate and map to chip ngpios) could be
> calculated from bitmask, but that involves iteratively counting
> bits from the mask, so we would have to do 800*600 bit counts.
> Unless, we do ugly things like cache the previous bitwidth/mask
> and compare against the current caller arguments. Given that the
> bitwidth would typically be a fixed value, I believe it is more
> intuitive for the caller to provide it, ...
>
> I think it's easier than that. bitwidth is just fls(bitmask) which
> should be efficient enough not to bother the programmer. If bitmask is
> constant it's even the compiler that does the work here.
>
That is a good point. I agree that width is ugly in the main API. It
is just fls(mask) and I now realize that this is an inline so you're
right it would get taken care of by the compiler. fls is checked with
__constant_fls first. Beauty! Thanks Uwe! I'll make these changes.
Thanks,
jaya
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
