Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: debugfs: display gpios requested as irq only

[Grygorii.Strashko@xxxxxxxxxx]

Hi Linus,

On 05/19/2015 05:12 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Grygorii.Strashko@xxxxxxxxxx
> <grygorii.strashko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 05/18/2015 06:08 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> 
>>>        GPIOs 160-191, platform/4805d000.gpio, gpio:
>>>        gpio-171 (<irq-only>          ) in  hi IRQ-209
>>
>> In general agree, but i propose to do it as
>>          GPIOs 160-191, platform/4805d000.gpio, gpio:
>>          gpio-171 ((null)          ) in  hi IRQ-209 <irq-only>
>>
>> My intention is - this interface could be considered as more or less stable, so
>> it is better to add additional information at the end of each line to avoid
>> potential breakage of User space SW (test/debug scripts).
> 
> What? If I wanted a stable interface I would use sysfs and document
> the ABI in Documentation/ABI/*.
> 
> debugfs is not ABI.
> 
> Debugfs is instable by definition, it is not for production. If tests depend on
> it they need to be ready to break and be updated, and in such case
> it is a very very good idea to put any such tests in tools/* in the
> kernel itself, as does trace-cmd and friends so you can patch the
> tests at the same time you patch the code.

Okay. Sorry, My comment was not fully correct - keyword was "more or less stable"
and of course it is not ABI.

Any way, the question is till here - How would it better to do?
  gpio-171 (<irq-only>          ) in  hi IRQ-209
-- or --
  gpio-171 ((null)          ) in  hi IRQ-209 <irq-only>

Thanks a lot for your comments.

-- 
regards,
-grygorii
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/