Hi Andy, On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:14 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:49:23PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 2:22 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman > > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 02:06:15PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > ... > > > > Yes it is. Or at least until you fix all existing users so that if you > > > do change it, no one notices it happening :) > > > > > > > Then another question is: do we really want to commit to a stable ABI > > for a module we only use for testing purposes and which doesn't > > interact with any real hardware. > > > > Rewriting this module without any legacy cruft is tempting though. :) > > Another thought spoken loudly: maybe it can be unified with GPIO aggregator > code? In that case it makes sense. You want to aggregate GPIOs out of thin air? >From DT, that would be something like gpios = <&gpio1 2>, <0>, <0>, <&gpio2, 5>; ? For writing into ".../new_device", we could agree on something like "0" means not backed by an existing GPIO? Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds