On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:55:07AM +0000, Chang, Rebecca Swee Fun wrote: > > > The register values are required when it comes to IRQ handling. By > > > passing in the registers values, we can make full use of the > > > algorithms without introducing extra/similar algorithms to compute > > > other register offset values. > > > For example, we have other offset values to handle such as:- > > > GTPE 0x0C > > > GTNE 0x10 > > > GGPE 0x14 > > > GSMI 0x18 > > > GTS 0x1C > > > CGNMIEN 0x40 > > > RGNMIEN 0x44 > > > > Well, can we at least call it something else than sch_gpio_enable()? > > Perhaps sch_gpio_set_value() or so? > > sch_gpio_set_value() sounds good. After think twice, I intend to merge > sch_gpio_enable() and sch_gpio_disable() into one functions. Using > variable "enable" as an indicator, I can control whether to enable or > disable when calling the function. Here is my draft:
Actually sch_gpio_set_value() is too close to sch_gpio_set() which sets the GPIO to 1 or 0. How about sch_gpio_register_set() or something along those lines? And I don't think it is good idea to add yet another functionality, like enable there. Please leave sch_gpio_enable()/sch_gpio_disable() as is. -- 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/
