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

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACRpkdZqAbRsvKEqTHNsZGsZO0KEMS1RyLtxujjdo8Xw59xnDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:13:45 +0100
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Alex Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>
Cc:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org" 
	<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: How about a gpio_get(device *, char *) function?

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Alex Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 08 November 2012 05:24:19 Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Alex Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com> wrote:
>> > How about, in a first time (and because I'd also like to get the power
>> > seqs
>> > moving on), a typedef from int to gpio_handle_t and a first implementation
>> > of the gpio_handle_*() API that would just call the existing
>> > integer-based API (apart from gpio_handle_get())? That way things will
>> > not break when we switch to a real handle.
>>
>> I'm afraid of typedef:ing gpio_handle_t to int because it sort of
>> encourages non-handlers to be used mixed with the old integers.
>>
>> I would prefer to create, e.g. in <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
>> something like:
>>
>> struct gpio;
>>
>> struct gpio *gpio_get(struct device *dev, const char *name);
>>
>> int gpio_get_value(struct gpio *g);
>>
>> Nothing more! I.e. struct gpio is an opaque cookie, nothing to be known
>> about it.
>
> However these is already a struct gpio declared in linux/gpio.h. Shall the
> opaque handler be renamed something like "struct gpioh", or is your idea to
> make both APIs mutually exclusive?

Basically I'd like the API's to be mutually execlusive.

But maybe there is a namespace clash anyway, since the
handler code will have to #linclude <linux/gpio.h>

This is one of the rare cases where I'd maybe like to
even #undef gpio in the core code just to be able to
mask that defintion of "gpio" with the "gpio" from the
new API.

I really like the fact that it will bite your hand if you try
to use both APIs at once, you could even introduce some

#define DO_NOT_INCLUDE_LINUX_GPIO_H
in <linux/gpio/consumer.h>

And
#define DO_NOT_INCLUDE_GPIO_CONSUMER_H
in <linux/gpio.h>

and then put things like:

#ifdef DO_NOT_INCLUDE_LINUX_GPIO_H
#error "Trying to use mutually exclusive interfaces"
#endif

into <linux/gpio.h>...

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/