![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
hi David, > > > * int gpio_set_direction(unsigned gpio, int is_in /* or > > > is_out? */) > > > ... returning 0 or negative errno (for invalid gpio) > > > > I think set_output_enable makes more sense, but maybe it's just me. > > It's just you. :) > > A "set enable" idiom is linguistically redundant too; "set" suffices, > or "enable". Both imply a need for an opposite "clear" or "disable. > "Direction" is a more obvious notion; the parameter should likely be > a symbol like GPIO_IN or GPIO_OUT. We originally had at91_set_gpio_direction() in the AT91 GPIO layer, and that seemed to cause confusion (eg, do I pass a 1 or 0 to enable output mode?) So I'd personally prefer to keep gpio_set_input() and gpio_set_output(). (alternative is "enable" instead of "set"). I think it's more readable. Regards, Andrew Victor - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-11-09 07:37 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||