Re: gpio patches in mmotm

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Guennadi Liakhovetski
Date: Monday, April 7, 2008 - 11:28 pm

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:


Yes, you could do that. But then you have to test either before calling 
gpio_set_value_cansleep() or inside it. And the test you have to perform 
_is_ the validity check, so, you need it anyway.


Actually three times. The one before gpio_free() is not actually needed, 
right, it is anyway checked inside. But gpio_set_value_cansleep() doesn't 
check, so, it would be rude to call it with an invalid value.


Which arch is it? As I said, you could simplify the two specific camera 
drivers by removing the checks where they are redundant. But on other 
occasions the checks have to be done anyway, so, it is not a question of 
runtime performance (apart from maybe the difference between calling a 
function and executing inline), but just of an extra API member, which you 
can have different opinions about:-)

Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: gpio patches in mmotm, Guennadi Liakhovetski, (Tue Mar 18, 9:31 am)
Re: gpio patches in mmotm, Uwe , (Mon Apr 7, 11:02 pm)
Re: gpio patches in mmotm, Guennadi Liakhovetski, (Mon Apr 7, 11:28 pm)
Re: gpio patches in mmotm, Uwe , (Tue Apr 8, 2:33 am)
Re: gpio patches in mmotm, Guennadi Liakhovetski, (Tue Apr 8, 3:44 am)
Re: gpio patches in mmotm, Uwe , (Tue Apr 8, 11:35 pm)
Re: gpio patches in mmotm, Guennadi Liakhovetski, (Wed Apr 9, 12:35 pm)