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

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: <CAAVeFuKXArYBGNjUW8Dug0avGJoHTHZWD=FSxrTqTF+nRjBcOw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:27:16 +0900
From:	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>
To:	Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/23] gpio: sysfs: rename gpiochip registration functions

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> wrote:
> 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@...nel.org> 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@...nel.org> 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.

Sounds good then. This patch series is great anyway, so if Linus has
nothing against it I hope we can merge it quickly.
--
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/