[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200907140829.GL1891694@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 17:08:29 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-gpio <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-doc <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 23/23] Documentation: gpio: add documentation for
gpio-mockup
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:49:23PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 2:22 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 02:06:15PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
...
> > Yes it is. Or at least until you fix all existing users so that if you
> > do change it, no one notices it happening :)
> >
>
> Then another question is: do we really want to commit to a stable ABI
> for a module we only use for testing purposes and which doesn't
> interact with any real hardware.
>
> Rewriting this module without any legacy cruft is tempting though. :)
Another thought spoken loudly: maybe it can be unified with GPIO aggregator
code? In that case it makes sense.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists