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-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
