Re: How about a gpio_get(device *, char *) function?

[Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:38:38 +0900, Alex Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com> wrote:
> On Monday 26 November 2012 19:14:31 Grant Likely wrote:
> > I don't have any problem with a gpio_get function, but I do agree that
> > making it return an opaque handle is how it should be written with a new
> > set of accessors. The handle should probably be simply the pointer to
> > the &gpio_desc[number] which is a private table in gpiolib.c. The
> > definition of it isn't available outside of gpiolib.c
> 
> That looks like a reasonable approach, but this would make the new API 
> available only to systems that use GPIOlib. Shouldn't we be concerned about 
> making this available to all GPIO implementations? Or is GPIOlib so widely 
> used that we don't care?

I'm tempted to say non-gpiolib is not supported. However, there isn't
anything that would prevent non-gpiolib users from implementing the api
themselves, but they'd need to provide their own handle..

g.