[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: gpiolib and sleeping gpios

    --- On Sun, 6/20/10, Ryan Mallon <> 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",

    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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-06-21 04:45    [W:0.052 / U:54.664 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site