Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932307AbbERP6t (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 18 May 2015 11:58:49 -0400
Received: from mail-la0-f67.google.com ([209.85.215.67]:35520 "EHLO
	mail-la0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932272AbbERP6k (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 18 May 2015 11:58:40 -0400
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 17:58:37 +0200
From: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To: "Grygorii.Strashko@linaro.org" <grygorii.strashko@linaro.org>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: debugfs: display gpios requested as irq only
Message-ID: <20150518155837.GJ28127@localhost>
References: <1431696321-7257-1-git-send-email-grygorii.strashko@linaro.org>
 <20150518110214.GC28127@localhost>
 <5559E3C0.1040207@linaro.org>
 <20150518150815.GH28127@localhost>
 <555A0299.3030803@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <555A0299.3030803@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1431
Lines: 39

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 06:17:45PM +0300, Grygorii.Strashko@linaro.org wrote:
> On 05/18/2015 06:08 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:

> > How about instead of
> > 
> > 	GPIOs 160-191, platform/4805d000.gpio, gpio:
> > 	gpio-171 ((null)              ) in  hi IRQ209
> > 
> > you do something like:
> > 
> > 	GPIOs 160-191, platform/4805d000.gpio, gpio:
> > 	gpio-171 (<irq-only>          ) in  hi IRQ-209
> 
> In general agree, but i propose to do it as 
> 	GPIOs 160-191, platform/4805d000.gpio, gpio:
>  	gpio-171 ((null)          ) in  hi IRQ-209 <irq-only>

I have no strong opinion on whether to use the name-field here or not.

Using the name-field rather than adding a new one could perhaps be
less confusing to current parsers.

> My intention is - this interface could be considered as more or less
> stable, so it is better to add additional information at the end of
> each line to avoid potential breakage of User space SW (test/debug
> scripts).

But if the interface is considered stable (and some people do) you would
not be able to add anything here. This *is* a real issue, but I'll defer
this one to Linus and Alexandre.

Perhaps we should just leave things as they are.

Johan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/