[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMRc=MdjiyzBzdQpYK=qGwS=j55W5mujoTWruRP9DeOv11Y8rg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:58:51 +0100
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Koichiro Den <koichiro.den@...onical.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linus.walleij@...aro.org, maciej.borzecki@...onical.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/10] gpio: aggregator: cancel deferred probe for
devices created via configfs
On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 2:15 PM Koichiro Den <koichiro.den@...onical.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On one hand, I agree that it would make some scenarios simpler, and
> > let us propagate an error code to the sysfs writer in case of failure.
> >
> > On the other hand, it would change user behavior. Currently people can
> > configure a GPIO aggregator, and load the driver module for the parent
> > gpiochip later, relying on deferred probing to bring up everything
> > when it is ready.
>
> Thank you both for your insights, Bartosz and Geert. I've just sent v3
> (https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250216125816.14430-1-koichiro.den@canonical.com/)
> which retains the current behavior, to not suprise anyone now.
> I'm now considering whether we might eventually deprecate the sysfs
> interface in the future. Doing so could simplify the codebase and bring it
> in line with gpio-sim and gpio-virtuser.
>
Heh, yeah you'd think so. You can watch my talk[1] on how easy it is
to remove sysfs interfaces. :)
Bartosz
[1] https://fosdem.org/2025/schedule/event/fosdem-2025-5288-the-status-of-removing-sys-class-gpio-and-the-global-gpio-numberspace-from-the-kernel/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists