[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] Rework gpio cansleep (was Re: gpiolib and sleeping gpios)
David Brownell wrote:
> --- On Tue, 6/22/10, Ryan Mallon <> wrote:
>>> --- On Tue, 6/22/10, Ryan Mallon <>
>> wrote:

>>>> 'Can sleep' for a gpio has two different meanings
>> depending
>>>> on context
>>> NO; for the GPIO itself it's only ever had one
>>> meaning, regardless of context.
>>> You're trying to conflate the GPIO and one
>>> of the contexts in which it's used. That's
>>> the problem you seem to be struggling with.
>>> Please stop conflating/confusing
>>> those two disparate concepts...
>> I'm not.
> BUT Your "counter" example below is solid
> proof that you are: it shows exactly the
> confusion I pointed out: call context versus
> the GPIO itself. There's no way I can read
> that as anything except "you are"...
> Your intent here seems perhaps more to
> be a troll than to address any real
> technical issues. I don't see much
> point participating any further.
> Some gpios, such as those on io expanders, may
>> sleep in their
>> implementations of the gpio_(set/get) functions.
> Such GPIOs have a "cansleep" attribute, in short.
>> Drivers, which use a gpio, may call gpio_(set/get)
>> functions for a given
>> gpio from a context where it is not safe to sleep.
> And that's the call dontext
> (in this case, from a driver).


> QED. You are confusing two disparate concepts.

We are saying exactly the same thing.

> In this
>> case, a gpio
>> which may sleep (ie one on an i2c io-expander) cannot be
>> used with this
>> driver. The gpio_request will succeed, but any call to
>> gpio_(set/get)_value will produce a warning.
>>>> example, if a driver calls gpio_get_value(gpio)
>> from an
>>>> interupt handler
> (YOU introduce interrupt/IRQ handlers...)
>>>> then the gpio must not be a sleeping gpio.
>>> In a threaded IRQ handler it's OK to use
>>> the get_value_cansleep() option..
>> Ugh, you are really twisting my words.
> You said IRQ handler, so did I. In what csense could I
> possibly be "twisting" your words"???

Okay, I messed up the wording an used 'interrupt handler' as an example
of a non-sleep safe context. If I had said 'atomic' or 'spinlock'
context you would probably be telling me off for missing some other
non-sleep safe contexts.

The point is that we are discussing the issue of calls which may sleep.
Even if I was not entirely clear by getting the wording wrong, you _do_
know what I am talking about. You could correct on the bits on I get
wrong instead of labeling me a troll.

If we strip my patch back to just introducing gpio_request_cansleep,
which would be used in any driver where all of the calls are
gpio_(set/get)_cansleep, and make gpio_request only allow non-sleeping
gpios then incorrect use of gpios would be caught at request time and
returned to the caller as an error.


 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-23 21:15    [W:0.143 / U:6.596 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site