Re: [PATCH 0/5] Introduce a managed function for gpio_request_array

[Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Himangi Saraogi <himangi774@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> This patchset intoduces a new managed interface devm_gpio_request_array,
>> adds it in the documentation and its declaration in the gpio.h include
>> file. Some cases of gpio_request_array are changed to
>> devm_gpio_request_array.
>>
>> Himangi Saraogi (5):
>>   gpiolib: devres: Introduce the function devm_request_gpio_array
>>   ASoC: wm1250-ev1: Use devm_gpio_request_array
>>   ASoC: pxa: Use devm_gpio_request_array
>>   ASoC: pxa: e800_wm9712: Introduce the use of devm_gpio_request_array
>>   ASoC: pxa/hx4700: Introduce the use of devm_gpio_request_array
>
> Sorry, we're not encouraging extension of the old gpio* plain API anymore.
>
> The right thing to do is convert users over to using GPIO descriptors
> internally, then introduce devm_gpiod_get_array() if that makes some
> sense.
>
> Alexandre, what do you say?

I do agree that we want to discourage people from using the integer
API, and would also prefer to see the consumers converted to gpiod and
proper gpiod functions introduced.

On the other hand with Rob's similar patch which seems to be about to
be merged (https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/2/149 ) I guess the pressure
to accept one or the other is quite high. At least, I hope Rob or
Himangi will follow-up with a patch adding similar functionality to
the gpiod API, and will consider converting their consumers to it
(it's for your own good!).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html