From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johan Hovold Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/23] gpio: sysfs: rename gpiochip registration functions Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 13:12:16 +0200 Message-ID: <20150428111216.GG4306@localhost> References: <1429630951-27082-1-git-send-email-johan@kernel.org> <1429630951-27082-8-git-send-email-johan@kernel.org> <20150427082753.GB27877@localhost> <20150427090510.GE27877@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com ([209.85.217.170]:34737 "EHLO mail-lb0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933156AbbD1LMQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2015 07:12:16 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Alexandre Courbot Cc: Johan Hovold , Linus Walleij , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:27:16PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Johan Hovold 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 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 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