On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 10:50 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024, at 10:27, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 10:17 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On second thought > >> though: are you sure drivers/gpio/ is the right place for it? > > > > Actually that is something I requested. > > > > I think it fits in drivers/gpio as it is such a clear cut usage of GPIO > > lines, and it doesn't really fit into any other subsystem. > > > >> May I suggest moving it over to drivers/misc/? > > > > Misc is a bit... > > messy. I remember Arnd being very sceptical about putting stuff there > > rather than creating new subsystems, so since I've tried to avoid it, > > albeit recently more and more stuff gets merged there again :/ > > Right, and that is mostly to avoid having code in there because > there is no other place for it. Some parts of drivers/misc should > have been a separate subsystem, some should have use an existing > subsystem, and other parts should have never been merged. > > The parts of drivers/misc that make the most sense to me are > those that expose a one-of-a-kind piece of hardware as a > single character device. > > This one would probably fit into drivers/misc/ better than > some other drivers we have in there, but leaving it in > drivers/gpio/ also seems fine. > This is my point. This really is a one-of-a-kind module that also doesn't register with any particular subsystem. If anything fits into drivers/misc/ then it's this. To prove this point, I even moved the gpio-virtuser driver I'm working on to drivers/misc/ too as it isn't a GPIO provider either and merely a GPIO consumer with a one-shot user-space interface not conforming to any standards. > I could also imagine the functionality being exposed > through drivers/iio/ in a way that is similar to an > adc, but I don't know if that would work in practice or > how much of a rewrite that would be. > I could see it using configfs instead of DT for configuration and iio for presenting the output but - from what Wolfram said - insisting on this will simply result in this development being dropped entirely. Bart
