Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [-mm patch 1/4] GPIO framework for AVR32 | From | Andrew Victor <> | Date | 09 Nov 2006 09:26:02 +0200 |
| |
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/
| |