Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 13:51:56 -0700 From: Oleksandr Tymoshenko <gonzo@freebsd.org> To: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r299563 - head/sys/dev/gpio Message-ID: <20160512205156.GA99686@bluezbox.com> In-Reply-To: <1463085629.1180.75.camel@freebsd.org> References: <201605122012.u4CKCkVD040893@repo.freebsd.org> <1463085629.1180.75.camel@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ian Lepore (ian@freebsd.org) wrote: > On Thu, 2016-05-12 at 20:12 +0000, Oleksandr Tymoshenko wrote: > > Author: gonzo > > Date: Thu May 12 20:12:45 2016 > > New Revision: 299563 > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/299563 > > > > Log: > > Add gpiobus_release_pin function to release mapped pin > > > > Add gpiobus_release_pin as a counterpart for gpiobus_map_pin. > > Without it it's impossible to properly release pin so if kernel > > module is reloaded it can't re-use pins again > > This reminds me that we (Michael Meloun & I) had talked on irc about > renaming gpiobus_map_pin() to gpiobus_acquire_pin() and adding a > release function. Now we have the release, but its name really doesn't > scream that it's the inverse of map_pin. Is it too late to rename map > to acquire? (I'm not too wed to the 'acquire' name, 'allocate' would > also be a good candidate. We also considered 'reserve' but that had > less of a "now I own it exclusively" feel to it. 'map' didn't feel > quite right because mapping pins in an FDT world is the responsibility > of the pinmux driver, not a gpio thing.) I do not think it's too late. I guess if you do this before code slush for 11 that should be OK. At least I can not come up with a reason why it can't be done. -- gonzo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160512205156.GA99686>