periph/gpio: use inline functions to test for valid and equal GPIOs #14902
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The expandable GPIO API requires the comparison of structured GPIO types. This means that inline functions must be used instead of direct comparisons. For the migration process, drivers and other modules must first be changed so that they use the inline comparison functions.
The expandable GPIO API requires the comparison of structured GPIO types. This means that inline functions must be used instead of direct comparisons. For the migration process, drivers must first be changed so that they use the inline comparison functions.
The expandable GPIO API requires the comparison of structured GPIO types. This means that inline functions must be used instead of direct comparisons. For the migration process, tests must first be changed so that they use the inline comparison functions.
The expandable GPIO API requires the comparison of structured GPIO types. This means that inline functions must be used instead of direct comparisons. For the migration process, packages must first be changed so that they use the inline comparison functions.
benpicco
reviewed
Aug 31, 2020
| if ((cs == SPI_CS_UNDEF) || (cs == GPIO_UNDEF)) { | ||
| if (gpio_is_equal(cs, SPI_CS_UNDEF) || !gpio_is_valid(cs)) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I understand that you want to keep this PR simple, basically just doing automatic conversion.
But mind you that SPI_CS_UNDEF is
#define SPI_CS_UNDEF (GPIO_UNDEF)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
SPI_CS_UNDEF is overridable and might be something else than GPIO_UNDEF.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yea I just noticed that it's never overwritten.
So if we do away with GPIO_UNDEF this will probably go too.
|
What script did you use for the conversion? |
No script, I did it with a combination of |
benpicco
approved these changes
Aug 31, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Contribution description
The expandable GPIO API in PR #14602 requires the comparison of structured GPIO types. This means that inline functions have be used instead of direct comparisons. For the migration process, drivers, packages and tests must first be changed so that they use these inline comparison functions.
This PR is a split-off from PR #14602 and required by PR #14602.
Testing procedure
Compilation should success. Since many sensor and actuator drivers are affected, a tests of all changes seem to be impractical. Therefore a very careful review of the changes should be done.
Issues/PRs references
Required by PR #14602.