Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Oct 2013 21:51:08 +0200 | From | Lars-Peter Clausen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c-mux-gpio: test if the gpio can sleep |
| |
On 10/10/2013 09:43 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:46:41AM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > >>> + if (gpio_cansleep(gpio)) >>> + gpio_set_value_cansleep(gpio, val & (1 << i)); >>> + else >>> + gpio_set_value(gpio, val & (1 << i)); >> >> The proper way to do this is just always use the _cansleep() version. >> gpio_set_value() only works for chips which do not sleep, >> gpio_set_value_cansleep() works for both those who do sleep and those who do >> not. > > To the gpio-list: Has it been considered to have sth. like > gpio_set_value and gpio_set_value_nosleep? I'd think it makes more sense > to have the specific function have the specific name.
It has been a few times, but I think the conclusion has always been that it is now too late to invert the semantics of gpio_set_value(). If you want to look up the discussions the keyword is gpio_set_value_atomic().
- Lars
| |