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: <20200904154547.3836-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <20200904154547.3836-24-brgl@bgdev.pl>
 <26ea1683-da8f-30e7-f004-3616e96d56b3@infradead.org> <20200907095932.GU1891694@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <CAMpxmJXvhYOVkZY7LLf=v+o8E2xKTh1RYhLrdVsS9nN1XZ5QJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200907115310.GA1891694@smile.fi.intel.com> <CAMpxmJUfNkko4Rrb4N5CF_rdwRAWGhVr9DSOHfhYyTxYSH7dsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200907122238.GA1849893@kroah.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200907122238.GA1849893@kroah.com>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Sep 2020 15:49:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMpxmJXM=8oGoPSGg8G8XJ4HXJFrAQ2-_EXrz3rf3+ZmCSWB7g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 23/23] Documentation: gpio: add documentation for gpio-mockup
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 2:22 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 02:06:15PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 1:53 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:26:34PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 11:59 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 08:15:59PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > > > On 9/4/20 8:45 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > > > +GPIO Testing Driver
> > > > > > > +===================
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +The GPIO Testing Driver (gpio-mockup) provides a way to create simulated GPIO
> > > > > > > +chips for testing purposes. There are two ways of configuring the chips exposed
> > > > > > > +by the module. The lines can be accessed using the standard GPIO character
> > > > > > > +device interface as well as manipulated using the dedicated debugfs directory
> > > > > > > +structure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Could configfs be used for this instead of debugfs?
> > > > > > debugfs is ad hoc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually sounds like a good idea.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, then we can go on and write an entirely new mockup driver
> > > > (ditching module params and dropping any backwards compatibility)
> > > > because we're already using debugfs for line values.
> > > >
> > > > How would we pass the device properties to configfs created GPIO chips
> > > > anyway? Devices seem to only be created using mkdir. Am I missing
> > > > something?
> > >
> > > Same way how USB composite works, no?
> > >
> >
> > OK, so create a new chip directory in configfs, configure it using
> > some defined configfs attributes and then finally instantiate it from
> > sysfs?
> >
> > Makes sense and is probably the right way to go. Now the question is:
> > is it fine to just entirely remove the previous gpio-mockup? Should we
> > keep some backwards compatibility? Should we introduce an entirely new
> > module and have a transition period before removing previous
> > gpio-mockup?
> >
> > Also: this is a testing module so to me debugfs is just fine. Is
> > configfs considered stable ABI like sysfs?
>
> Yes it is.  Or at least until you fix all existing users so that if you
> do change it, no one notices it happening :)
>

Then another question is: do we really want to commit to a stable ABI
for a module we only use for testing purposes and which doesn't
interact with any real hardware.

Rewriting this module without any legacy cruft is tempting though. :)

Bart