Re: HAL API change request

Either sounds fine to me > On Jan 17, 2018, at 4:34 PM, markus wrote: > > doesn't that imply a guarantee the HAL apparently doesn't make? > > how about > hal_gpio_toggle_basic() > hal_gpio_toggle_hw() > > > On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 16:23:51 -0800 > will sanfilippo

Re: HAL API change request

doesn't that imply a guarantee the HAL apparently doesn't make? how about hal_gpio_toggle_basic() hal_gpio_toggle_hw() On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 16:23:51 -0800 will sanfilippo wrote: > hal_gpio_toggle_atomic() > > > > On Jan 17, 2018, at 2:50 PM, markus wrote:

Re: HAL API change request

hal_gpio_toggle_atomic() > On Jan 17, 2018, at 2:50 PM, markus wrote: > > any suggestions for a name of the new api? > > > On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:41:08 -0800 > Christopher Collins wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 02:33:09PM -0800, markus wrote: >>> I do

Re: HAL API change request

any suggestions for a name of the new api? On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:41:08 -0800 Christopher Collins wrote: > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 02:33:09PM -0800, markus wrote: > > I do think there is a write and wrong about toggling a pin. The > > reason processors and HALs have an API

Re: HAL API change request

Markus (and all): I think there may be some confusion here or misinterpretations. I think most would agree that there is no absolute requirement for a hal_gpio_toggle() API if you can both read and write a gpio. The API was added as a helper since toggling a gpio is a fairly common construct.

Re: HAL API change request

Hi Vipul, > > The point was to fix a broken API, not to do my own thing ;). > > > > Looking at the history hal_gpio_toggle was correctly declared > > initially and then changed with commit 274da3263 (no rational given > > as to why). > > The change request was sent on the mailing list and

Re: HAL API change request

Sorry about the late response - I fell ill. The point was to fix a broken API, not to do my own thing ;). Looking at the history hal_gpio_toggle was correctly declared initially and then changed with commit 274da3263 (no rational given as to why). Looking at the current implementations (11):

HAL API change request

I've been looking at hal_gpio_toggle and it's declaration could be improved by removing the return value: void hal_gpio_toggle(int pin); As it currently stands, by requiring a return value of the pin state one cannot use the HW support of most processors to toggle the pin, and it's