Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Jun 2010 07:09:57 +0200 | From | Uwe Kleine-König <> | Subject | Re: gpiolib and sleeping gpios |
| |
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 07:40:46PM -0700, David Brownell wrote: > > > 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. I'm against such an additional flag, too. But I still think merging gpio_get_value and gpio_get_value_cansleep is nice.
Best regards Uwe
-- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- 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/
| |