On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 12:57:27PM +0200, Henning Schild wrote: > Am Mon, 29 May 2023 15:54:36 +0200 > schrieb simon.guinot@xxxxxxxxxxxx: > > > On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 03:03:28PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > > On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 2:27 PM <simon.guinot@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > It would be nice if a pin number found in the device datasheet > > > > could still be converted into a Linux GPIO number by adding the > > > > base of the first bank. > > > > > > We actively discourage this kind of mapping because of reasons > > > stated in drivers/gpio/TODO: we want dynamic number allocation to > > > be the norm. > > > > Hi Linus, > > > > Sure but it would be nice to have a dynamic base applied to a > > controller (and not to each chip of this controller), and to respect > > the interval between the chips (as stated in the controllers > > datasheets). > > You mentioned yourself that there are the holes to take care of. And > the symbols/names from the SPECs seem to be octal numbers to me. While > humans might prefer decimal and the code seems to be hexadecimal. > > Not sure the numbers have ever been too useful for humans. And once we > change one base (bank0) we actually already break user-land that so far > failed to discover the base from sysfs (bug in that user-land code, not > our problem). > > I am with Linus on that one, we should try. I am also in the Linus and "everybody but me" team too :)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
