On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Linus Walleij
> wrote:
>> At this point we have to cross-reference the pointer to my chip to
>> find the chip to remove. This goes for anything that takes the struct
>> gpio_chip *
>> as parameter, like g
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> Ok, but let's take a step back. So you have all this in place and a
> consumer calls gpiod_get_value() that returns an errno because the device
> is gone. Note that this wasn't even possible before e20538b82f1f ("gpio:
> Propagate errors from
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 02:08:35PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> This removes the use of container_of() constructions from *all*
>>> GPIO drivers in the kernel. It is done by inst
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 03:46:00PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 02:08:35PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >> Because we want to have a proper userspace ABI for GPIO chips,
> >> which involves using a cha
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 02:08:35PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> This removes the use of container_of() constructions from *all*
>> GPIO drivers in the kernel. It is done by instead adding an
>> optional void *data pointer to the struct gpi
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 02:08:35PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> This removes the use of container_of() constructions from *all*
> GPIO drivers in the kernel. It is done by instead adding an
> optional void *data pointer to the struct gpio_chip and an
> accessor function, gpiochip_get_data() to get
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
Thanks Russell, I think you speed up the design and shorten the
development time by providing these ideas, so it is much, much
appreciated.
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 02:08:35PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> Because we want to have
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 02:08:35PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> Because we want to have a proper userspace ABI for GPIO chips,
> which involves using a character device that the user opens
> and closes. While the character device is open, the underlying
> kernel objects must not go away.
Okay, so
This removes the use of container_of() constructions from *all*
GPIO drivers in the kernel. It is done by instead adding an
optional void *data pointer to the struct gpio_chip and an
accessor function, gpiochip_get_data() to get it from a driver.
WHY?
Because we want to have a proper userspace AB
