lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] leds/of: leds-gpio.c: Use gpio_get_value_cansleep() when initializing.
From
The non-cansleep version is only supposed to be different from
__gpio_get_value() (which is virtually the same code) in that it can
inline a fast gpio operation.  So calling cansleep vs the non-cansleep
shouldn't result in any change that would break anything.  If it did
it would be flaw in that architecture's version of gpio_get_value().
It should just mean a call that could be inlined won't be.

I suppose one could ask if gpio_get_value_cansleep() needs to exist.

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:39:52 -0700 David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com> wrote:
>
> > I get the following warning:
> >
> > ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > WARNING: at drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c:1559 __gpio_get_value+0x90/0x98()
> > Modules linked in:
> > Call Trace:
> > [<ffffffff81440950>] dump_stack+0x8/0x34
> > [<ffffffff81141478>] warn_slowpath_common+0x78/0xa0
> > [<ffffffff812f0958>] __gpio_get_value+0x90/0x98
> > [<ffffffff81434f04>] create_gpio_led+0xdc/0x194
> > [<ffffffff8143524c>] gpio_led_probe+0x290/0x36c
> > [<ffffffff8130e8b0>] driver_probe_device+0x78/0x1b0
> > [<ffffffff8130eaa8>] __driver_attach+0xc0/0xc8
> > [<ffffffff8130d7ac>] bus_for_each_dev+0x64/0xb0
> > [<ffffffff8130e130>] bus_add_driver+0x1c8/0x2a8
> > [<ffffffff8130f100>] driver_register+0x90/0x180
> > [<ffffffff81100438>] do_one_initcall+0x38/0x160
> >
> > ---[ end trace ee38723fbefcd65c ]---
> >
> > My GPIOs are on an I2C port expander, so we must use the *_cansleep()
> > variant of the GPIO functions.  This is was not being done in
> > create_gpio_led().
> >
> > We can change gpio_get_value() to gpio_get_value_cansleep() because it
> > is only called from the platform_driver probe function, which is a
> > context where we can sleep.
> >
> > Only tested on my gpio_cansleep() system, but it seems safe for all
> > systems.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > --- a/drivers/leds/leds-gpio.c
> > +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-gpio.c
> > @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ static int __devinit create_gpio_led(const struct gpio_led *template,
> >       }
> >       led_dat->cdev.brightness_set = gpio_led_set;
> >       if (template->default_state == LEDS_GPIO_DEFSTATE_KEEP)
> > -             state = !!gpio_get_value(led_dat->gpio) ^ led_dat->active_low;
> > +             state = !!gpio_get_value_cansleep(led_dat->gpio) ^ led_dat->active_low;
> >       else
> >               state = (template->default_state == LEDS_GPIO_DEFSTATE_ON);
> >       led_dat->cdev.brightness = state ? LED_FULL : LED_OFF;
>
> gpio_get_value() is an architecture-specific function whereas
> gpio_get_value_cansleep() is not.  Hence all architectures will now be
> forced to use the same code.  Why is this OK?
>
> Asides:
>
> The duplication of code between __gpio_get_value() and
> gpio_get_value_cansleep() is daft.
>
> The comment over gpio_get_value_cansleep() sucks mud rocks.
>
--
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: 2011-09-09 05:57    [W:0.397 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site