On Monday, December 10, 2012 5:18 PM, Jingoo Han wrote > On Thursday, December 06, 2012 4:22 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 07:20:00PM +0100, Marko Katić wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux > > > <li...@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 09:59:07AM +0900, Jingoo Han wrote: ... > > Eric shares my opinion of the _cansleep() mess, but unfortunately it's > > what we have and no one's come up with any better solutions to it. (I > > argued from the outset that the gpio_xxx_cansleep() should've been > > gpio_xxx() and the non-cansleep() version should be called > > gpio_xxx_atomic() so that by default people use the version which _can_ > > sleep, but have to think about it when they want to manipulate GPIOs in > > non-task contexts.) > > Hi Russell, > > Thank you for your explanation. It is very helpful for getting hold of. > I have been confused by the current function name such as gpio_xxx_cansleep(). > As you mentioned, gpio_xxx_cansleep()and gpio_xxx_atomic() would be better.
Oh, sorry. There is a mistake. It should be as below: 'gpio_xxx()and gpio_xxx_atomic() would be better'. Best regards, Jingoo Han -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
