Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 23:07:22 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: gljennjohn@gmail.com Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: INTR_POLARITY_BOTH_EDGES? Message-ID: <cb7f5dae-040e-07f5-e0c2-1eb6cd8a2883@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20200630164613.0ca1d6d3@ernst.home> References: <aee40a9e-729a-6e87-4f7c-f96533681c51@FreeBSD.org> <20200630164613.0ca1d6d3@ernst.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 30/06/2020 17:46, Gary Jennejohn wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 11:22:42 +0300 > Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > >> What do you think about adding this to intr_polarity ? >> I think that it's useful for two reasons: >> - support for GPIO interrupts of that kind (GPIO_INTR_EDGE_BOTH) >> - symmetry with ACPI's ACPI_ACTIVE_BOTH (which probably exists for GPIO as well) >> This new polarity is to be valid only with INTR_TRIGGER_EDGE as the name (and >> sanity) implies. >> >> By the way, the name is a open for bikeshedding. >> > > Seems reasonable, but to my embedded-software developer's ear INTR_ACTIVE_BOTH_EDGES > makes more sense. I mean, a signal may have a polarity, but an interrupt does not. > Well, the enumeration is named intr_polarity and all its existing members are prefixed with INTR_POLARITY_. This is probably not the best naming convention -- in retrospect. It sounds natural for level interrupts, but somewhat weird for edge interrupts. But I'll leave changing it for another day (if ever). -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb7f5dae-040e-07f5-e0c2-1eb6cd8a2883>