Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] mdio-mux-gpio: use new gpiod_get_array and gpiod_put_array functions

[Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Rojhalat Ibrahim <imr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> And the interface as proposed in this series is very convenient for obtaining
> all the GPIOs belonging to a group with a single function call and without
> having to know the number of GPIOs within the group beforehand.
>
> So if we want to support different use cases, I think it's quite good as it is.
> People who want to set a group of GPIOs as obtained by gpiod_get_array() can
> do so with a single call to gpiod_set_array(), the only overhead being that
> they have to specify the two elements of struct gpiod_descs explicitly.
> Likewise people who want to set a group of GPIOs obtained with a combination
> of calls to gpiod_get_array() and gpiod_get() can do so too. They just have
> to create that group first.
>
> On the other hand if gpiod_set_array() would require a struct gpiod_descs as
> argument the creation of a group for the second use case would become more
> complicated as you would have to allocate a struct instead of an array, etc.
>
> So let's just keep it the way it is and get this series merged.

I've merged it.

But can you make a separate patch to Documentation/gpio/consumer.txt
describing the array usecase(s) a bit in detail so people realize when it's
good to use these functions?

> About the confusing function names: I would be happy to submit a patch
> renaming gpiod_set_array() to gpiod_set_array_value(), once this has been
> merged. I'm a little concerned about the length of some function names though.
> Isn't gpiod_set_raw_array_value_cansleep() a bit long?

Just patch it and we'll discuss it... :)

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html