2009-09-29 10:47:33

by Ben Dooks

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: gpiolib: add names file in gpio chip sysfs.

On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 04:43:39PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:55:36 +0100
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
>
> Did you mean the commit to have an author of [email protected]? I assumed
> not and rewrote it to
>
> Ben Dooks <[email protected]>
>
> If you indeed want a different Author: and Signed-off-by: line then
> please indicate that explicitly by putting a From: line at the top of
> the changelog.

sorry, occasionally whilst using quilt mail I get this wrong.

> As your MUA didn't fill in the real-name part of the From: address,
> it's nice to provide a From: line in the changelog so the patch
> receiver doesn't have to type it in.
>
> > Add a 'names' file to the sysfs entries for each chip to show which
> > have names.
>
> Why?

To export this information to the user. That was the only reason.

--
Ben

Q: What's a light-year?
A: One-third less calories than a regular year.


2009-09-29 19:35:17

by Andrew Morton

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: gpiolib: add names file in gpio chip sysfs.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:47:35 +0100
Ben Dooks <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 04:43:39PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:55:36 +0100
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Did you mean the commit to have an author of [email protected]? I assumed
> > not and rewrote it to
> >
> > Ben Dooks <[email protected]>
> >
> > If you indeed want a different Author: and Signed-off-by: line then
> > please indicate that explicitly by putting a From: line at the top of
> > the changelog.
>
> sorry, occasionally whilst using quilt mail I get this wrong.
>
> > As your MUA didn't fill in the real-name part of the From: address,
> > it's nice to provide a From: line in the changelog so the patch
> > receiver doesn't have to type it in.
> >
> > > Add a 'names' file to the sysfs entries for each chip to show which
> > > have names.
> >
> > Why?
>
> To export this information to the user. That was the only reason.
>

hm, OK. I guess I just won't be understanding what value this patch
has. Hopefully more gpio-inclined people do.

What's the status of this patch now? I have a note that David had
issues with it - did they get resolved somehow?