drivers/periph_gpio: let gpio_read() return bool #20936
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
maribu
requested review from
MrKevinWeiss,
aabadie,
vincent-d,
benpicco,
dylad,
keestux,
kaspar030,
gschorcht,
bergzand,
basilfx,
nandojve and
kYc0o
as code owners
maribu
added
the
CI: ready for build
github-actions
bot
added
Platform: native
maribu
added
the
Process: API change
dylad
requested changes
Oct 22, 2024
Since RIOT-OS#20935 gpio_write() uses a `bool` instead of an `int`. This does the same treatment for `gpio_read()`. This does indeed add an instruction to `gpio_read()` implementations. However, users caring about an instruction more are better served with `gpio_ll_read()` anyway. And `gpio_read() == 1` is often seen in newcomer's code, which would now work as expected.
We just changed the API so that it returns bool anyway.
maribu
force-pushed
the
drivers/periph_gpio/gpio_read/bool
branch
from
0bcbca1 to
815fe17
Compare
|
Don't forget to remove the extra commit :) |
dylad
added
Process: missing approvals
maribu
force-pushed
the
drivers/periph_gpio/gpio_read/bool
branch
from
815fe17 to
7d1313b
Compare
maribu
requested review from
leandrolanzieri,
MichelRottleuthner and
chrysn
as code owners
github-actions
bot
added
Area: tests
Done. But since this requires recently merged changes to the rust wrappers to work with both old and new for dir in $(dirname $(find . -name Cargo.lock)); do
pushd $dir
cargo update riot-wrappers
popd
done |
chrysn
approved these changes
Oct 24, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM at a glance, and I checked the Rust changes to be really just what is needed here.
In general I softly prefer doing the Rust changes outside the breaking PR (so that not just the riot-wrappers' limited CI runs, but it gets a full murdock run), but the change is so small here that doing it in the breaking PR is just as fine.
github-actions
bot
removed
the
Process: missing approvals
|
@benpicco Should this PR go into master ? |
github-merge-queue
bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks
|
Thx :) |
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
Since #20935 gpio_write() uses a
boolinstead of anint. This does the same treatment forgpio_read().This does indeed add an instruction to
gpio_read()implementations. However, users caring about an instruction more are better served withgpio_ll_read()anyway. Andgpio_read() == 1is often seen in newcomer's code, which would now work as expected.Testing procedure
This should not cause any regressions.
I cannot find any way to use
int gpio_read()that won't work withbool gpio_read()anymore at the top of my head.Issues/PRs references
Same that #20935 did for
gpio_write(), but forgpio_read().