LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Simek <email@example.com>
To: Linus Walleij <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Michal Simek <email@example.com>
Cc: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>,
Michal Simek <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Steffen Trumtrar <email@example.com>,
Peter Crosthwaite <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <email@example.com>,
Rob Herring <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Linux ARM <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: zynq: Setup chip->base based on alias ID
Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 12:15:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
On 2.5.2018 12:10, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Michal Simek <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> The only use case which I can think about is userspace sysfs
>>> and then I would really like to know why these userspace
>>> users cannot use the character device that is nowadays
>>> supported by libgpiod and there is even patches for some
>>> IoT libraries to use it. The character device makes the
>>> GPIO Linux "base" irrelevant for userspace.
>>> GPIO sysfs is deprecated and moved to the obsolete ABI.
>>> If there are legacy applications that use this I would have
>>> to consider it, but since this has been -1 since the driver
>>> was merged I find that unlikely.
>> Yes, it is about legacy application which I have seen recently and there
>> is no source code for application calls it because board vendor doesn't
>> provide it.
>> You are right that -1 was used from the beginning in mainline but
>> unfortunately this driver was in vendor tree for a while and it uses 0
>> In upstreaming this was changed to -1 but customers have a lot of code
>> which developed against vendor tree and they want to use
>> latest&greatest. And without this they are not able to run that
>> I found that this logic is already in 5 drivers in mainline that's why I
>> send this patch to be +1.
> I see.
> Sadly comaptibility with out-of-tree driver code is none of our
> (community) business.
> We do pay a lot of effort not to break the ABI to userspace, but
> it needs to be an ABI coming from the mainline kernel, not from
> a vendor tree.
> So to the mainline kernel this is no regression.
I understand your statement. On the other hand it is feature which was
permitted in past for some drivers and this is +1.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-02 10:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-11 13:55 Michal Simek
2018-04-26 13:08 ` Linus Walleij
2018-04-26 13:35 ` Michal Simek
2018-05-02 10:10 ` Linus Walleij
2018-05-02 10:15 ` Michal Simek [this message]
2018-05-02 13:01 ` Linus Walleij
2018-05-02 13:41 ` Michal Simek
2018-05-02 13:56 ` Linus Walleij
2018-05-02 14:19 ` Michal Simek
2018-05-15 13:26 ` Michal Simek
2018-05-23 9:44 ` Linus Walleij
2018-05-23 10:26 ` Michal Simek
2018-05-23 9:42 ` Linus Walleij
2018-05-23 10:17 ` Michal Simek
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--subject='Re: [PATCH] gpio: zynq: Setup chip->base based on alias ID' \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).