Hello Markus, On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 04:01:42PM +0200, Markus Pargmann wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:27:02PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:32:44AM +0200, Markus Pargmann wrote: > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c > > > index bf4bd1d120c3..9f402b159cbe 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c > > > @@ -798,7 +798,8 @@ static int __gpiod_request(struct gpio_desc *desc, const char *label) > > > * before IRQs are enabled, for non-sleeping (SOC) GPIOs. > > > */ > > > > > > - if (test_and_set_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &desc->flags) == 0) { > > > + if (test_and_set_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &desc->flags) == 0 || > > > + test_and_clear_bit(FLAG_IS_HOGGED, &desc->flags) == 1) { > > > desc_set_label(desc, label ? : "?"); > > > status = 0; > > I don't like this patch. IMHO hogging is a "use" of a GPIO that should > > prevent it being requested. > > I disagree with you here. The original patch stated in its description > that it was designed to initialize GPIOs. In my understanding this does > not necessarily mean that a hogged GPIO has to be blocked forever. Assume for a moment I can agree with "not necessarily". But now, what about the cases where a hogged GPIO should be blocked? IMHO, if you want to drive the GPIO from userspace anyhow, you don't need to add a hog for it. > The IS_HOGGED flag is cleared at the same time it is tested so only one > consumer can request one hogged GPIO. The GPIO is not considered to be > hogged after it is normally requested. You're right here, I missed the and_clear_bit part on the test. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- 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