On Tuesday 06 November 2012 01:35:11 Stephen Warren wrote: > On 11/04/2012 11:04 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Alex Courbot <acour...@nvidia.com> wrote: > >> Would anyone be opposed to having a gpio_get() function that works > >> similarly to e.g. regulator_get() and clk_get()? > > > > I understand the concept and why you want to do this. > > > > However I think the global GPIO numberspace defeats the > > purpose. > > > > gpio_get() should get an abstract handle just like clk_get() or > > regulator_get(), not a fixed numeral. > > I don't really see why the return type of gpio_get() influences whether > it can be implemented or not. > > If gpio_get() were implemented today, it could return an integer with > the same value as any other GPIO functions use already. > > With board files, some "gpio map" table would simply contain the same > int GPIO ID value the table as is used anywhere else already. With DT, > the same xlate function would translate from DT GPIO-chip-relative > IDs/specifiers into the global number space in the same way that we do > today via other APIs. > > If the GPIO subsystem were reworked as you propose, this API could be > reworked in exactly the same way, or if implemented after the rework, it > would return whatever handle type was in use at the time.
How about, in a first time (and because I'd also like to get the power seqs moving on), a typedef from int to gpio_handle_t and a first implementation of the gpio_handle_*() API that would just call the existing integer-based API (apart from gpio_handle_get())? That way things will not break when we switch to a real handle. Alex. -- 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/
