On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 15:22 +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> one comment below
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 02:08:16PM +0200, ext Jani Nikula wrote:
> > +int omap_update_gpio_switch(const struct omap_gpio_switch *cfg)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + struct gpio_switch *sw = find_switch(cfg->gpio, cfg->name);
> > +
> > + if (!sw)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&sw->lock, flags);
> > + sw->debounce_rising = cfg->debounce_rising;
> > + sw->debounce_falling = cfg->debounce_falling;
> > + sw->notify = cfg->notify;
> > + sw->notify_data = cfg->notify_data;
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sw->lock, flags);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(omap_update_gpio_switch);
>
> how about you only change what's not null ?? then you could only change
> the notify callback and keep the same debounce_rising/falling ??
That's a nice idea, but gpio_sw_irq_handler() actually supports having 0
debounce timeouts, i.e. no settling time. Of course, I could use -1 for
"don't update". However, the semantics above is exactly the same as in
add_board_switches() for the update case. I'm not sure if it would be a
good idea to deviate from this - what do you think?
Jani.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
