Hi Linus, On 05/19/2015 05:12 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 5:17 PM, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org > <grygorii.stras...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 05/18/2015 06:08 PM, Johan Hovold wrote: > >>> GPIOs 160-191, platform/4805d000.gpio, gpio: >>> gpio-171 (<irq-only> ) in hi IRQ-209 >> >> In general agree, but i propose to do it as >> GPIOs 160-191, platform/4805d000.gpio, gpio: >> gpio-171 ((null) ) in hi IRQ-209 <irq-only> >> >> My intention is - this interface could be considered as more or less stable, >> so >> it is better to add additional information at the end of each line to avoid >> potential breakage of User space SW (test/debug scripts). > > What? If I wanted a stable interface I would use sysfs and document > the ABI in Documentation/ABI/*. > > debugfs is not ABI. > > Debugfs is instable by definition, it is not for production. If tests depend > on > it they need to be ready to break and be updated, and in such case > it is a very very good idea to put any such tests in tools/* in the > kernel itself, as does trace-cmd and friends so you can patch the > tests at the same time you patch the code.
Okay. Sorry, My comment was not fully correct - keyword was "more or less stable" and of course it is not ABI. Any way, the question is till here - How would it better to do? gpio-171 (<irq-only> ) in hi IRQ-209 -- or -- gpio-171 ((null) ) in hi IRQ-209 <irq-only> Thanks a lot for your comments. -- regards, -grygorii -- 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/
