On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 11:02 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 18:14 +0200, Loic Poulain wrote: > > > + if (gpiod_cansleep(rfkill->shutdown_gpio)) > > + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(rfkill->shutdown_gpio, !blocked); > > + else > > + gpiod_set_value(rfkill->shutdown_gpio, !blocked); > > + > > + if (gpiod_cansleep(rfkill->reset_gpio)) > > + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(rfkill->reset_gpio, !blocked); > > + else > > + gpiod_set_value(rfkill->reset_gpio, !blocked); > > Really? I mean, there's not even a fallback where the cansleep() API > calls the non-sleeping one if the cansleep isn't support? This is really > ugly. Actually, it looks like unconditionally using the cansleep API should be fine since it just calls the same internal helper function. Please respin. johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
