Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200516064507.19058-1-warthog618@gmail.com> <CACRpkdbputuoHFWL_FhUNR-ZywvJt=qYdaa+i2cLt-Odmgxe2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200525141902.GA27938@sol> <CACRpkda4PEYd5UGbLkq9w1RBbtOdZxuMQ75k-nu5YfoKTZ_azA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkda4PEYd5UGbLkq9w1RBbtOdZxuMQ75k-nu5YfoKTZ_azA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Jun 2020 14:06:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMpxmJVzMJkPSrL4uhfCgjXb7CkLSOH3kW=aeb68LRNJenKRiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] gpio: uapi: v2 proposal
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc:     Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

=C5=9Br., 27 maj 2020 o 07:58 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> napi=
sa=C5=82(a):
>
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 4:19 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > +struct gpioline_config {
> > > > +       __u8 default_values[GPIOLINES_MAX];
> > >
> > > So 32 bytes
> > >
> >
> > Actually that one is 64 bytes, which is the same as v1, i.e. GPIOLINES_=
MAX
> > is the same as GPIOHANDLES_MAX - just renamed.
> >
> > On the subject of values, is there any reason to use a byte for each li=
ne
> > rather value than a bit?
>
> Not really, other than making things simple for userspace.
>

I'm in favor of using bits here. I think we can rely on libgpiod to
make things simple for user-space, the kernel interface can be as
brief as possible.

Bart