From: Alex Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
"devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org"
<devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: How about a gpio_get(device *, char *) function?
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 15:23:22 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1503934.I4tc7K6I6s@percival> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdYqCQc0Er1JR_eVzZPCycvKjd0Pph8Dcay0FbU3Q64D8A@mail.gmail.com>
On Thursday 08 November 2012 05:24:19 Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Alex Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com> wrote:
> > How about, in a first time (and because I'd also like to get the power
> > seqs
> > moving on), a typedef from int to gpio_handle_t and a first implementation
> > of the gpio_handle_*() API that would just call the existing
> > integer-based API (apart from gpio_handle_get())? That way things will
> > not break when we switch to a real handle.
>
> I'm afraid of typedef:ing gpio_handle_t to int because it sort of
> encourages non-handlers to be used mixed with the old integers.
>
> I would prefer to create, e.g. in <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
> something like:
>
> struct gpio;
>
> struct gpio *gpio_get(struct device *dev, const char *name);
>
> int gpio_get_value(struct gpio *g);
>
> Nothing more! I.e. struct gpio is an opaque cookie, nothing to be known
> about it.
However these is already a struct gpio declared in linux/gpio.h. Shall the
opaque handler be renamed something like "struct gpioh", or is your idea to
make both APIs mutually exclusive?
Alex.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-11-08 6:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-31 9:04 How about a gpio_get(device *, char *) function? Alex Courbot
2012-10-31 15:25 ` Stephen Warren
2012-11-01 2:48 ` Alex Courbot
2012-11-04 18:04 ` Linus Walleij
2012-11-05 7:31 ` Alex Courbot
2012-11-05 12:09 ` Linus Walleij
2012-11-26 11:25 ` Grant Likely
2012-11-05 17:35 ` Stephen Warren
2012-11-06 1:33 ` Alex Courbot
2012-11-07 21:24 ` Linus Walleij
2012-11-08 6:14 ` Alex Courbot
2012-11-08 6:23 ` Alex Courbot [this message]
2012-11-13 13:13 ` Linus Walleij
2012-11-07 21:28 ` Linus Walleij
2012-11-26 11:14 ` Grant Likely
2012-11-28 3:38 ` Alex Courbot
2012-11-29 17:34 ` Grant Likely
2012-12-01 18:41 ` Linus Walleij
2012-12-03 14:15 ` Grant Likely
2012-11-26 11:17 ` Grant Likely
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1503934.I4tc7K6I6s@percival \
--to=acourbot@nvidia.com \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox