From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ezequiel Garcia Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: spi-gpio: Use 'cansleep' variants to access GPIO Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 12:56:29 -0300 Message-ID: <20131124155628.GA3417@localhost> References: <1385296621-23638-1-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> <20131124141255.GZ14725@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: linux-spi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Mark Brown Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131124141255.GZ14725-GFdadSzt00ze9xe1eoZjHA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-spi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 02:12:55PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 09:37:01AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > > The GPIO chip in use could be of any kind, and therefore might slee= p > > when accesing the GPIO lines. Take account of this by using canslee= p > > instead, which is the most generic case. >=20 > Applied, thanks. Mark: I'm just wondering -as I don't have much experience with gpiolib- is this replacement the Right Thing To Do? It seemed to me that the xxx_cansleep variant just adds a check and a might_sleep, so this change won't hurt the general case. Is this correct? --=20 Ezequiel Garc=C3=ADa, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html