Hi Andy,

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:14 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:49:23PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 2:22 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 02:06:15PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

...

quoted

quoted

Yes it is.  Or at least until you fix all existing users so that if you
do change it, no one notices it happening :)

Then another question is: do we really want to commit to a stable ABI
for a module we only use for testing purposes and which doesn't
interact with any real hardware.

Rewriting this module without any legacy cruft is tempting though. :)

Another thought spoken loudly: maybe it can be unified with GPIO aggregator
code? In that case it makes sense.

You want to aggregate GPIOs out of thin air?

From DT, that would be something like

    gpios = <&gpio1 2>, <0>, <0>, <&gpio2, 5>;

?

For writing into ".../new_device", we could agree on something like "0"
means not backed by an existing GPIO?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds