Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221130155519.20362-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20221130155519.20362-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <CACRpkdaQWZE6=BNEh5hSH9=jBK=TcLoD1uUb=JyNYmHFvaSAfg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y41MxPthLjitvzEl@sol> <CACRpkdb67ygsEuZhRZ9TGmmNXhiU2LsuefD0-48xtCLx3fq-KA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y5BjJmz5Mvdr8cAR@smile.fi.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y5BjJmz5Mvdr8cAR@smile.fi.intel.com>
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 7 Dec 2022 14:49:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CACRpkdYVp7j7h-9w_7N05zAv8otmFY0EBkO16ymk0EO-T0LwwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] Documentation: gpio: Add a section on what to
 return in ->get() callback
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 10:56 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 01:06:46AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 2:43 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > My preference would be for the driver API to be extended with a new
> > > callback for the output buffer, say get_output(), and have the existing
> > > get() always return the input buffer.
> >
> > This has a certain elegance to it, as it cuts to the bone of the
> > problem and partition it in two halves, reflecting the two pieces
> > of hardware: input and output buffer. Also follows Rusty Russells
> > API hierarchy.
>
> The (one of) problem is that not all hardware may support input and output
> be enabled at the same time. What would that new API return in that case
> and how it would be better with get() returning the value depending on
> direction?

I imagine we would leave the .get_output() unassigned and the core
would just rely on whatever behaviour it has now, so in *that* case,
the implementation of .get() will need to be more elaborate.

Yours,
Linus Walleij