On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 04:08:58PM -0700, Trent Piepho wrote: >> + * @flags: if non-NUll flags are returned here > > NULL, not NUll.
Thanks, fixed. >> + const void *gpio_spec, unsigned int *flags) > > Why you made it unsigned int? In my original patch, I used > named enum, which is self-documenting type. I started writing this patch before you posted yours, and I didn't think of the enum. But you have a good point so I'll switch to an enum. >> + * Flags as returned by OF GPIO chip's xlate function. >> + * These do not need to be the same as the flags in the GPIO specifier in >> the >> + * OF device tree, but it's convenient if they are. The mm chip OF GPIO >> + * driver works this way. > > This is not of_mm_gpio_chip specific. of_mm_gpio_chip was just an example of a driver that uses the same flag format for Linux and the OF binding. I'll clarify the comment. WRT changing the interface, Linux doesn't provide a stable kernel API. Functions that have been around far longer than of_get_gpio() and have far more users have changed. Yes, it is slightly annoying now. But providing backward compatibility for every single interface change will produce a bloated and redundant API that will be around forever. > Can you repost a fixed version with my Ack and Cc: Andrew Morton, > Benjamin Herrenschmidt? > > I think this change should go into the 2.6.28, so that we can > write new code on top of new API. Otherwise this change will cause > issues in the next merge window. If you can get your patch into Ben's -next tree before the high .28-RCs come out, I can just rebase my patch to that tree and make the changes to any new callers of of_get_gpio() that are there. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
