Re: How about a gpio_get(device *, char *) function?

[Linus Walleij]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:38:38 +0900, Alex Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Monday 26 November 2012 19:14:31 Grant Likely wrote:
>> > I don't have any problem with a gpio_get function, but I do agree that
>> > making it return an opaque handle is how it should be written with a new
>> > set of accessors. The handle should probably be simply the pointer to
>> > the &gpio_desc[number] which is a private table in gpiolib.c. The
>> > definition of it isn't available outside of gpiolib.c
>>
>> That looks like a reasonable approach, but this would make the new API
>> available only to systems that use GPIOlib. Shouldn't we be concerned about
>> making this available to all GPIO implementations? Or is GPIOlib so widely
>> used that we don't care?
>
> I'm tempted to say non-gpiolib is not supported. However, there isn't
> anything that would prevent non-gpiolib users from implementing the api
> themselves, but they'd need to provide their own handle..

I get the creeps when you say that ...

Now I think I have to put on my TODO to remove a few custom GPIO
implementations so it feels better. ;-)

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/