On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:32, Felipe Balbi <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 11:29:16AM +0200, ext Grazvydas Ignotas wrote: >> >> There is also an issue if somebody calls _set_gpio_debounce(bank, 1, >> 310) and _set_gpio_debounce(bank, 2, 620), the second call will >> override debounce setting of GPIO1 (as it's shared by the whole bank). >> This might be not what the user intended, would be useful to detect >> this and warn the user. > > good point. As this is RFC, I'll wait until everybody comments.
Hi Felipe - You might want to have a look at [1] on irq debouncing. The hardware support for debouncing varies (bank/gpio restrictions, debounce timeouts, no support at all, what else?) so how can the users of this interface rely on debouncing? What are the guarantees? AFAICS e.g. gpio-keys would have to do software debouncing anyway. [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/24/325 BR, Jani. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
