[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150518155837.GJ28127@localhost>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 17:58:37 +0200
From: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To: "Grygorii.Strashko@...aro.org" <grygorii.strashko@...aro.org>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: debugfs: display gpios requested as irq only
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 06:17:45PM +0300, Grygorii.Strashko@...aro.org wrote:
> On 05/18/2015 06:08 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > How about instead of
> >
> > GPIOs 160-191, platform/4805d000.gpio, gpio:
> > gpio-171 ((null) ) in hi IRQ209
> >
> > you do something like:
> >
> > GPIOs 160-191, platform/4805d000.gpio, gpio:
> > gpio-171 (<irq-only> ) in hi IRQ-209
>
> In general agree, but i propose to do it as
> GPIOs 160-191, platform/4805d000.gpio, gpio:
> gpio-171 ((null) ) in hi IRQ-209 <irq-only>
I have no strong opinion on whether to use the name-field here or not.
Using the name-field rather than adding a new one could perhaps be
less confusing to current parsers.
> My intention is - this interface could be considered as more or less
> stable, so it is better to add additional information at the end of
> each line to avoid potential breakage of User space SW (test/debug
> scripts).
But if the interface is considered stable (and some people do) you would
not be able to add anything here. This *is* a real issue, but I'll defer
this one to Linus and Alexandre.
Perhaps we should just leave things as they are.
Johan
--
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