On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Linus Walleij <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It really comes down to how user-space wants to access GPIOs. I >> suspect the majority of sysfs accesses is done by scripts and other >> simple programs. If we introduce a char device that takes requires >> ioctls, it is then customary to add a small user-space library to >> abstract that (for both convenience and safety - think libdrm). Do we >> want to maintain libgpio? > > Good point. > > We have no clue about how the majority out there use the GPIO > sysfs, but I have heard of mission-critical systems just hammering > GPIOs from userspace. > > Sadly many of these industrial users are "I just want it to work, now" > types and they don't step forward much on these mailing lists. > (Learned from private conversations...) > > Maybe if noone voice their opinion and offer to help with this, we can > assume they don't exist (well obviously a community does not exist) > and their specific needs be ignored until they put their money where > their mouth is.
That's the only way we can handle the situation if people don't manifest their needs. But does this mean that you would agree with a cleaner, multi-GPIO friendly sysfs-based solution, or I am misunderstanding you? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
