Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:40:46 -0700 (PDT) | From | David Brownell <> | Subject | Re: gpiolib and sleeping gpios |
| |
--- On Sun, 6/20/10, Ryan Mallon <ryan@bluewatersys.com> wrote:
> >> The point I was trying to make is that > >> there are lots of drivers which > >> will not work with gpios on sleeping io expandersbecause they call the > >> spinlock safe gpio calls.
"Lots"? You mean there are lots of maintainers who aren't even bothering to provide trivial fixes for bug which are clearly reported to them by warnings? These one-liner fixes are not hard...
Such problems are people-problems, not issues with any framework. > > > > And they will trigger runtime warnings, and > > thus eventually get fixed. > \ > } > > err = gpio_request(some_gpio, "some_gpio", > GPIOF_NO_SLEEP);
NAK ... keep it simple. Such flags are clearly not necessary...
I understand that some folk are bothered by concepts/frameworks that seem "too simple" and thus want to complexify them. In this case I am in a position to help avoid that. Complexity is not a virtue.
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |