Re: [PATCH 07/23] gpio: sysfs: rename gpiochip registration functions

[Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:27:16PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 05:50:54PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:54:36PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> >> > Rename the gpio-chip export/unexport functions to the more descriptive
> >> >> > names gpiochip_register and gpiochip_unregister.
> >> >>
> >> >> Since these functions are related to sysfs, wouldn't
> >> >> gpiochip_sysfs_export (or gpiochip_sysfs_register, although the former
> >> >> sounds better to me) be even more descriptive?
> >> >
> >> > I'm trying to get rid of the made up notion of "exporting" things. What
> >> > we are doing is to register devices with driver core, and that involves
> >> > a representation is sysfs.
> >> >
> >> > Eventually, a gpio chip should always be registered with driver core and
> >> > this is not directly related to the (by then hopefully legacy)
> >> > sysfs-interface.
> >>
> >> I understand and agree, but even after your patch series, registration
> >> of a gpio chip with the driver core is still dependent on the
> >> CONFIG_GPIO_SYSFS option. So maybe you could push the logic further
> >> and either always register GPIO chips (effectively moving the call to
> >> device_create into gpiolib.c) and only keep the legacy bits in
> >> gpiolib-sysfs.c?
> >
> > That is the plan yes, but there's only so much I can do in one series.
> > ;) The current crazy sysfs API also prevents the decoupling of the sysfs
> > interface from chip device registration.
> 
> Sounds good then. This patch series is great anyway, so if Linus has
> nothing against it I hope we can merge it quickly.

Thanks for the review.

Johan