Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] misc: eeprom_93xx46: Add support for a GPIO 'select' line.

From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@mleia.com>
Cc: Cory Tusar <cory.tusar@pid1solutions.com>,
	robh+dt@kernel.org, pawel.moll@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com,
	ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, galak@codeaurora.org,
	agust@denx.de, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, jic23@kernel.org,
	broonie@kernel.org, afd@ti.com, Chris.Healy@zii.aero,
	Keith.Vennel@zii.aero, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] misc: eeprom_93xx46: Add support for a GPIO 'select' line.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 18:15:45 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151119171545.GF25345@lunn.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <564DFE69.6000203@mleia.com>

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 06:52:57PM +0200, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> On 19.11.2015 16:18, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >>>  #ifdef CONFIG_OF
> >>> +static void select_assert(void *context)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	struct eeprom_93xx46_dev *edev = context;
> >>> +
> >>> +	gpiod_set_value_cansleep(gpio_to_desc(edev->pdata->select_gpio), 1);
> >>
> >> I would suggest to use gpio_set_value()
> > 
> > Could you explain why?
> > 
> > Maybe this gpio is on an SPI GPIO expander?
> 
> My point is that gpio_*() interface, gpio_set_value() or
> gpio_set_value_cansleep(), might be preferred is this particular case.

Ah, O.K, yes, avoid the gpio_to_desc() call.

Agreed.

	Andrew