Hello.
On 19/12/16 00:25, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
Driver code never touches "rstn" signal in atomic context, so there's
no need to implicitly put such restriction on it by using gpio_set_value
to manipulate it. Replace gpio_set_value to gpio_set_value_cansleep to
fix that.
We need to make sure we are not assuming it can be called in such a
context in the future now. But that is something we can worry about if
it comes up.
As a an example of where such restriction might be inconvenient,
consider a hardware design where "rstn" is connected to a pin of I2C/SPI
GPIO expander chip.
Is this a real life issue you run into?
Cc: Chris Healy <cphe...@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smir...@gmail.com>
---
drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c
b/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c
index 9f10da6..7700690 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c
@@ -1710,9 +1710,9 @@ static int at86rf230_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
/* Reset */
if (gpio_is_valid(rstn)) {
udelay(1);
- gpio_set_value(rstn, 0);
+ gpio_set_value_cansleep(rstn, 0);
udelay(1);
- gpio_set_value(rstn, 1);
+ gpio_set_value_cansleep(rstn, 1);
usleep_range(120, 240);
}
Acked-by: Stefan Schmidt <ste...@osg.samsung.com>
regards
Stefan Schmidt
