On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Johan Hovold <jo...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 05:50:54PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Johan Hovold <jo...@kernel.org> wrote: >> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:54:36PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Johan Hovold <jo...@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> > Rename the gpio-chip export/unexport functions to the more descriptive >> >> > names gpiochip_register and gpiochip_unregister. >> >> >> >> Since these functions are related to sysfs, wouldn't >> >> gpiochip_sysfs_export (or gpiochip_sysfs_register, although the former >> >> sounds better to me) be even more descriptive? >> > >> > I'm trying to get rid of the made up notion of "exporting" things. What >> > we are doing is to register devices with driver core, and that involves >> > a representation is sysfs. >> > >> > Eventually, a gpio chip should always be registered with driver core and >> > this is not directly related to the (by then hopefully legacy) >> > sysfs-interface. >> >> I understand and agree, but even after your patch series, registration >> of a gpio chip with the driver core is still dependent on the >> CONFIG_GPIO_SYSFS option. So maybe you could push the logic further >> and either always register GPIO chips (effectively moving the call to >> device_create into gpiolib.c) and only keep the legacy bits in >> gpiolib-sysfs.c? > > That is the plan yes, but there's only so much I can do in one series. > ;) The current crazy sysfs API also prevents the decoupling of the sysfs > interface from chip device registration.
Sounds good then. This patch series is great anyway, so if Linus has nothing against it I hope we can merge it quickly. -- 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/
