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

[Johan Hovold]

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.

Johan
--
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/