From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp102.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (smtp102.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [67.195.15.61]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5E2211007D3 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:43:07 +1100 (EST) From: David Brownell To: Anton Vorontsov Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] gpiolib: Introduce chip addition/removal notifier Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:34:29 -0800 References: <20100125180957.GA5380@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <20100125181100.GA13805@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> In-Reply-To: <20100125181100.GA13805@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <201001252234.30169.david-b@pacbell.net> Cc: David Brownell , Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Bill Gatliff , Andrew Morton List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Monday 25 January 2010, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > +config GPIOLIB_NOTIFIER > +       bool > +       help > +         This symbol is selected by subsystems that need to handle GPIO > +         chips addition and removal. E.g., this is used for the > +         OpenFirmware bindings. > + I'm no huge fan of notifiers, but I suppose they have their place. However ... I don't see a lot of win to making this optional. Just inline the little two blocking_notifier_call_chain() calls directly, making this a *LOT* simpler. - Dave