On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Grant Likely <grant.lik...@secretlab.ca> wrote: > 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..
I get the creeps when you say that ... Now I think I have to put on my TODO to remove a few custom GPIO implementations so it feels better. ;-) Yours, Linus Walleij -- 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/