| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CACRpkdbQVHFWej=CPv0QOjH7OUr8Jj7wVjG=eRqkM=cbih1vAQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:00:23 +0200 From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> To: Johannes Stezenbach <js@...21.net>, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca> Cc: Mitch Bradley <wmb@...mworks.com>, devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: DT GPIO numbering? On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Johannes Stezenbach <js@...21.net> wrote: > Actually I think the kernel internal GPIO numbers shouldn't be in the > sysfs API, instead userspace should use the names. This is true, but we cannot remove these numbers because they are now in Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-gpio And while the "testing" ABI is, well for testing, it would probably break a lot of stuff it we removed it. But we can sure add names. However these would still sit under /sys/class/gpio/gpioN/name Or do you suggest we simply duplicate all GPIOs which have names under /sys/class/gpio/named/<name> or something like that? I know Grant may have opinions on this... > Probably it's > best to not use /sys/class/gpio/export but instead let the board > init code export the GPIOs available to userspace with proper names. This sounds true. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists