Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757019AbZFOMvC (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:51:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753972AbZFOMuw (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:50:52 -0400 Received: from aeryn.fluff.org.uk ([87.194.8.8]:40230 "EHLO kira.home.fluff.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753777AbZFOMuw (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:50:52 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:50:25 +0100 From: Ben Dooks To: Mark Brown Cc: Ben Dooks , Alek Du , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: Add gpio_detect, gpio_debounce and gpio_alt_func features to GPIOLIB Message-ID: <20090615125025.GB19873@fluff.org.uk> References: <20090615171502.2a981bf5@dxy.sh.intel.com> <20090615095023.GA19873@fluff.org.uk> <20090615100253.GC6106@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090615100253.GC6106@sirena.org.uk> X-Disclaimer: These are my own opinions, so there! User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1714 Lines: 36 On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:02:53AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:50:23AM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 05:15:02PM +0800, Alek Du wrote: > > > > * gpio_alt_func is to set pin as alternative function or GPIO. > > > gpio_alt_func is feature creep, I don't really belive this is the > > best place to put it as it will be difficult to actually make this > > generic for all gpio platforms. > > Since the proposed API just passes a value through to the driver for the > GPIO chip it looks generic enough - each chip can define whatever set of > constants it likes. I'd expect a large proportion of driver specific > APIs would end up just the same. > > Given the number of manufacturers that don't use a separate term like > the PXA MFP for the alternative functions of their GPIOs it makes sense > to have a gpiolib API for this. Without one you end up having each > driver needing to add its own API, and since the pins are just referred > to as GPIOs in the documentation the API will have that in the name and > look like it ought to be connected with gpiolib. Yes, however I can see some horrible problems ahead as soon as people try and then try and standardise the values passed through this. The GPIO API was meant to be a lightweight way of allowing drivers at GPIOs, now everyone seems to want to push whatever they feel like in. -- Ben (ben@fluff.org, http://www.fluff.org/) 'a smiley only costs 4 bytes' -- 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/