Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "gpiod_get".
2017 Jul 20
2
[PATCH 000/102] Convert drivers to explicit reset API
...reset_control_get(struct device *, const char *, int flags)
>> to replace all those variants ?
>
> While I like how this looks, unfortunately (devm_)reset_control_get
> already exists without the flags, so we can't change to that with a
> gentle transition.
This was done for gpiod_get() and its flags argument with horrifying
#define-ry, which thankfully was completely hidden from users.
--
Dmitry
2017 Jul 23
0
[PATCH 000/102] Convert drivers to explicit reset API
...ice *, const char *, int flags)
>>> to replace all those variants ?
>>
>> While I like how this looks, unfortunately (devm_)reset_control_get
>> already exists without the flags, so we can't change to that with a
>> gentle transition.
>
> This was done for gpiod_get() and its flags argument with horrifying
> #define-ry, which thankfully was completely hidden from users.
For your reference:
commit bae48da237fcedd7ad09569025483b988635efb7
"gpiolib: add gpiod_get() and gpiod_put() functions"
commit 39b2bbe3d715cf5013b5c48695ccdd25bd3bf120
"gp...
2017 Jul 24
2
[PATCH 000/102] Convert drivers to explicit reset API
...; >>> to replace all those variants ?
> >>
> >> While I like how this looks, unfortunately (devm_)reset_control_get
> >> already exists without the flags, so we can't change to that with a
> >> gentle transition.
> >
> > This was done for gpiod_get() and its flags argument with horrifying
> > #define-ry, which thankfully was completely hidden from users.
>
> For your reference:
>
> commit bae48da237fcedd7ad09569025483b988635efb7
> "gpiolib: add gpiod_get() and gpiod_put() functions"
>
> commit 39b2bbe3d...
2017 Jul 20
2
[PATCH 000/102] Convert drivers to explicit reset API
Hello,
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:36:55 +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > I don't know if it has been discussed in the past, so forgive me if it
> > has been. Have you considered adding a "int flags" argument to the
> > existing reset_control_get_*() functions, rather than introducing
> > separate exclusive variants ?
> >
> > Indeed, with a "int