Hello Grant,
On 11/26/2012 02:59 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 11:14:08 +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
<[email protected]> wrote:
allow to specify a name to an exported gpio
Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]>
The gpio sysfs ABI is already horrible, racy, and unsafe. Really, we
need a proper chrdev interface for controlling gpios. Sysfs is fine for
poking around and experimenting, but we cannot provide any fine grained
access control, locking or faster IO with the one-file-per-gpio sysfs
model. So, no, I don't think this is a good idea to extend gpiolib in
this way.
Would it make sense to provide only the DT binding to export a GPIO,
without changing the sysfs ABI? Even if work is progressing towards
having gpio-controlled reset pins [1], some boards still need GPIOs to
be exported to userspace for other functionalities.
Regards,
Florian
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/31364
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
