On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 16:22 +0200, ext Sebastien Jan wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> After review, I do not have many comments on the interface, as we already
> aligned on most of it.
>
> Please see my comments inlined below.
>
> On Friday 07 May 2010 17:18:31 Carlos Chinea wrote:
> [strip]
> > diff --git a/include/linux/hsi/hsi.h b/include/linux/hsi/hsi.h
> [strip]
> > +/**
> > + * hsi_start_tx - Signal the port that the client wants to start a TX
> > + * @cl: Pointer to the HSI client
> > + *
> > + * Return -errno on failure, 0 on success
> > + */
> > +static inline int hsi_start_tx(struct hsi_client *cl)
> > +{
> > + if (!hsi_port_claimed(cl))
> > + return -EACCES;
> > + return hsi_get_port(cl)->start_tx(cl);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * hsi_stop_tx - Signal the port that the client no longer wants to
> > transmit + * @cl: Pointer to the HSI client
> > + *
> > + * Return -errno on failure, 0 on success
> > + */
> > +static inline int hsi_stop_tx(struct hsi_client *cl)
> > +{
> > + if (!hsi_port_claimed(cl))
> > + return -EACCES;
> > + return hsi_get_port(cl)->stop_tx(cl);
> > +}
>
> As I can see, these two I/F functions are the way an HSI protocol layer can
> play with Tx_wake lines if it has to, right?
Right
> I suppose it allows more flexibility with regards to 3/4 wires HSI flavors
> management and avoids additional callbacks to Tx_wake related events?
Yep
Br,
Carlos Chinea
--
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
