Re: [PATCH 07/23] gpio: sysfs: rename gpiochip registration functions

From: Alexandre Courbot
Date: Mon Apr 27 2015 - 23:27:43 EST

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 05:50:54PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:54:36PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > Rename the gpio-chip export/unexport functions to the more descriptive
>> >> > names gpiochip_register and gpiochip_unregister.
>> >>
>> >> Since these functions are related to sysfs, wouldn't
>> >> gpiochip_sysfs_export (or gpiochip_sysfs_register, although the former
>> >> sounds better to me) be even more descriptive?
>> >
>> > I'm trying to get rid of the made up notion of "exporting" things. What
>> > we are doing is to register devices with driver core, and that involves
>> > a representation is sysfs.
>> >
>> > Eventually, a gpio chip should always be registered with driver core and
>> > this is not directly related to the (by then hopefully legacy)
>> > sysfs-interface.
>> I understand and agree, but even after your patch series, registration
>> of a gpio chip with the driver core is still dependent on the
>> CONFIG_GPIO_SYSFS option. So maybe you could push the logic further
>> and either always register GPIO chips (effectively moving the call to
>> device_create into gpiolib.c) and only keep the legacy bits in
>> gpiolib-sysfs.c?
> That is the plan yes, but there's only so much I can do in one series.
> ;) The current crazy sysfs API also prevents the decoupling of the sysfs
> interface from chip device registration.

Sounds good then. This patch series is great anyway, so if Linus has
nothing against it I hope we can merge it quickly.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at