On Thursday 08 November 2012 05:24:19 Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Alex Courbot <acour...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > 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. > > I'm afraid of typedef:ing gpio_handle_t to int because it sort of > encourages non-handlers to be used mixed with the old integers. > > I would prefer to create, e.g. in <linux/gpio/consumer.h> > something like: > > struct gpio; > > struct gpio *gpio_get(struct device *dev, const char *name); > > int gpio_get_value(struct gpio *g); > > Nothing more! I.e. struct gpio is an opaque cookie, nothing to be known > about it.
However these is already a struct gpio declared in linux/gpio.h. Shall the opaque handler be renamed something like "struct gpioh", or is your idea to make both APIs mutually exclusive? 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/
