On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 05:39:01PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Michael Welling <mwell...@ieee.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 04:52:26PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > > >> Whoever comes up with a cleaner sysfs or a clean device interface > >> will win the argument and lock the path for the other approach. > >> It's like a forking path with no going back or something. > > > > There is no need to fork and in fact it would probably be a bad idea. > > For the record I am *NOT* talking about this: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29 >
Okay. > > At EMAC we support both sysfs and character device simultaneously. > > Sysfs for the ease of use and ioctl for real time advantages. > > What is EMAC? It is the company that I am currently working for. www.emacinc.com > > > Not saying that it is a good reference but the two interfaces "could" > > co-exist. > > Hm.... > > I would more think about deprecating the sysfs in favor of the dev > node. What happens to all of the users of the sysfs interface when this happens? > > But this is getting terribly academic since we're just talking, noone is > really implementing anything. Without a specification nothing is ever going to be implemented. If not here, where will we be able to discuss the implementation details? > > Yours, > Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
