On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:16 PM Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [Bartosz] > > I do believe that having a single driver will cause less confusion in > > the future and make it less likely that someone needing another > > testing future will try to get merged a third separate driver. Linus > > will have the last word of course but personally I'd like to work > > towards extending gpio-mockup. > > I won't argue here. Iff you think gpio-simulator is good to take without > merging with gpio-mockup I'm willing to work on the (other) identified > weaknesses. We just don't want to have to maintain two synthetic drivers for this. libgpiod has an extensive set of tests: https://github.com/brgl/libgpiod/tree/master/tests If gpio-simulator should replace gpio-mockup, all it needs to do is pass all these tests without changes. That is the beauty of test driven development. However I would have a serious allergic reaction to any "merge this now fix any tests later" or "not my problem to pass these tests" approach. A slot-in replacement doing all that gpio-mockup does and then some would likely be accepted on the condition that gpio-mockup is deleted at the same time, as that would prove it is a bigger and better swiss army knife for GPIO simulation/mockuping. Yours, Linus Walleij
