Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 16:46:13 +0200 From: Gary Jennejohn <gljennjohn@gmail.com> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: INTR_POLARITY_BOTH_EDGES? Message-ID: <20200630164613.0ca1d6d3@ernst.home> In-Reply-To: <aee40a9e-729a-6e87-4f7c-f96533681c51@FreeBSD.org> References: <aee40a9e-729a-6e87-4f7c-f96533681c51@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. -- Gary Jennejohn
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200630164613.0ca1d6d3>