[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20121129173407.11A543E0A04@localhost>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:34:07 +0000
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To: Alex Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org"
<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: How about a gpio_get(device *, char *) function?
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:38:38 +0900, Alex Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com> 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..
g.
--
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