Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:47:48 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: GPIO support for HTC Dream |
| |
Hi!
> >> For completeness you should probably also add: > >> > >> static inline int irq_to_gpio(unsigned irq) > >> { > >> return -EINVAL; > >> } > > > > I'd say that would be overdoing it. > > I only mentioned that one because it is one of the functions listed in > Documentation/gpio.txt. I'm not sure if that means it's "required". You > make the call...
Aha, sorry, I misparsed that. There's gpio_to_irq and irq_to_gpio. One does not seem to be required; as I'm stubbing the other one, I'd prefer to leave it alone.
> >> Otherwise, looks good to me. Just test it to make sure it works :-). > >> > >> Since I have no way of compiling or testing this... > >> > >> Reviewed-by: H Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@visionengravers.com> > > > > I believe inlining that function would be bad change. Can I still use > > reviewed-by tag? > > The reason I suggest making it an inline in the header is you might > eventually want to change both gpio_to_irq and irq_to_gpio into macros > so that they can be used for static initializers. For right now both > are simple return -EINVAL but when gpio irq's are supported you might > find a need to use one or the other in a platform init...
According to gpio.txt, those are functions, not macros... and I actually prefer functions, as they are harder to misuse.
> Regardless, yes you can still use my reviesed-by tag.
Thanks. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |