On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Rojhalat Ibrahim <[email protected]> wrote:
> And the interface as proposed in this series is very convenient for obtaining > all the GPIOs belonging to a group with a single function call and without > having to know the number of GPIOs within the group beforehand. > > So if we want to support different use cases, I think it's quite good as it > is. > People who want to set a group of GPIOs as obtained by gpiod_get_array() can > do so with a single call to gpiod_set_array(), the only overhead being that > they have to specify the two elements of struct gpiod_descs explicitly. > Likewise people who want to set a group of GPIOs obtained with a combination > of calls to gpiod_get_array() and gpiod_get() can do so too. They just have > to create that group first. > > On the other hand if gpiod_set_array() would require a struct gpiod_descs as > argument the creation of a group for the second use case would become more > complicated as you would have to allocate a struct instead of an array, etc. > > So let's just keep it the way it is and get this series merged. I've merged it. But can you make a separate patch to Documentation/gpio/consumer.txt describing the array usecase(s) a bit in detail so people realize when it's good to use these functions? > About the confusing function names: I would be happy to submit a patch > renaming gpiod_set_array() to gpiod_set_array_value(), once this has been > merged. I'm a little concerned about the length of some function names though. > Isn't gpiod_set_raw_array_value_cansleep() a bit long? Just patch it and we'll discuss it... :) Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
