On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 03:05:54PM -0700, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 08/11/2014 08:20 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > > [ ... ] > > > >> > >> Note that this doesn't change anything to the core of the argument ; > >> we have not heard what Linus thinks about named GPIOs in > >> /sys/class/gpio yet, maybe he will have a different opinion... > >> > > > > Well, please let me know if/when you are planning to take away > > that existing ABI so I can plan accordingly. FWIW, out-of-kernel > > users I am currently aware of are Juniper Networks and Zodiac > > Aerospace. The latter asked me to help them upstreaming their code. > > > > If you plan to remove the ABI, you might want to inform its current > > in-kernel users. You can look those up yourself. > > We are not taking existing user-space ABIs away. But we are also not > encouraging people to use bad ABIs by introducing new ways to use > them, hence my restraint towards this patch. > You bring it to the point. You believe that the gpio ABI, or maybe just named gpio pins, is a bad idea. Nothing I am going to say will influence that opinion; all we do is to keep turning in circles. So let's stop wasting our time, agree to disagree, and move on. Thanks, Guenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
