On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:38:38 +0900, Alex Courbot <acour...@nvidia.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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/