On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 11:29:16AM +0200, ext Grazvydas Ignotas wrote: >> >> Hmh, dbck is shared by the whole GPIO bank, so what happens if someone >> calls _set_gpio_debounce(bank, 1, 310) and then >> _set_gpio_debounce(bank, 2, 0)? This should leave debounce enabled for >> GPIO1, but you'll disable dbck on second call. GPIOs 0-31 share the >> same bank. > > but why would you call _set_gpio_debounce(bank, 2 0); without setting a real > debounce value before ? ok then you could call _set_gpio_debounce(bank, 1, 310); _set_gpio_debounce(bank, 2, 310); _set_gpio_debounce(bank, 2, 0); The problem here is that debounce is still active for GPIO1, but you disable dbck for the whole bank. > >> There is also an issue if somebody calls _set_gpio_debounce(bank, 1, >> 310) and _set_gpio_debounce(bank, 2, 620), the second call will >> override debounce setting of GPIO1 (as it's shared by the whole bank). >> This might be not what the user intended, would be useful to detect >> this and warn the user. > > good point. As this is RFC, I'll wait until everybody comments. > > -- > balbi > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
