On Monday 23 January 2012 01:20:16 Simon Glass wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Tuesday 10 January 2012 19:45:47 Simon Glass wrote: > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/arch/sandbox/include/asm/gpio.h > >> > >> +int sandbox_gpio_get_value(int gp); > > > > why bother with parallel sandbox gpio API ? why can't we just implement > > the gpio API directly and throw away sandbox_gpio_xxx ? then we can > > also stub out sandbox/include/asm/gpio.h ... > > Because the current state of the GPIOs needs to be stored somewhere. > Test code which wants a GPIO to appear to be high to U-Boot can call > sandbox_gpio_set_value() and that value will be recorded and provided > to future gpio_get_value() calls. > > Without this virtualisation, the driver would have no purpose.
i'm not seeing it. why does external code need to reach into the guts at all
when we have a gpio API for them to use ?
> > also, missing gpio_status() define to gpio_info()
>
> I see gpio_info() there at the bottom - gpio_status() is optional I
> think. Do we need to bring this in?
gpio_info is pointless without gpio_status. honestly, i don't even know why
that symbol exists at all ... the public API is gpio_status(). might as well
just call it that.
> >> +/* read GPIO IN value of port 'gp' */
> >> +int gpio_get_value(int gp)
> >> ...
> >> + if (get_gpio_flag(gp, GPIOF_OUTPUT))
> >> ...
> >> +int gpio_set_value(int gp, int value)
> >> ...
> >> + if (get_gpio_flag(gp, GPIOF_OUTPUT)) {
> >
> > drop valid gpio checking in these funcs ... only the request func should
> > do this
>
> What if someone passes in garbage value? Don't we want to catch this?
normally, no. in the sandbox world, i guess we do, but there should be
verbose dump messages ... perhaps an assert() ?
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
