On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:19:11AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 7:33 PM Robert Schwebel > <r.schwebel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > While this could also be done with a daemon offering a dbus api, this > > would be significantly more complex. In a critical environment, one > > needs to make sure that the daemon process never fails, otherwhise the > > power of the DuT would maybe be in a random state. Then of course one > > can add a watchdog, but with the current sysfs interface it's really > > simple. Of course that would also work if the new interface would offer > > a "keep this line as it is" feature, but adding a dbus daemon just for > > keeping the state of a pin sounds overcomplex when the kernel could also > > provide that functionality. > > One issue we face as developers is scaleability. Things that > seem straight forward on a single board computer in a lab get > really complex in a big system with man GPIO chips. This is the point where the discussion took a wrong turn. Yes, there is awareness that the sysfs API has a downside (here: on some platforms the number allocation is not stable). But the problem here is that the alternative (i.e. using the newer devctrl API) also has a downside that makes it unsuitable (or overly complex) to use for some workflows. Just an idea: Wouldn't a nice solution be to make it possible to opt-out of the reset to the safe state after use? Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
