On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 09:10:12PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 3:09 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 02:21:18PM +0300, andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > Tue, May 30, 2023 at 05:29:23PM +0800, Kent Gibson kirjoitti: > > > > On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 08:20:44PM +0000, Gabriel Matni wrote: > > > > > From: Gabriel Matni <gabriel.matni@xxxxxxxx> > > > > > > ... > > > > I take it you would be in favour of an idle timeout option then? > > > > I'm puzzled why no one has ever asked for it before, if it is something > > that is in demand. > > > > Cheers, > > Kent. > > I do see value in this option. I'm not buying the argument about > losing events - the same can be said in reverse - before we even > request a line, we can lose events too. > > Gabriel: please address the issues pointed out by Kent if you still > want to add this. > And consider adding a test to the test suite, assuming you have a suitable test environment. There are timeout tests for gpioset there already as an example. Cheers, Kent.