Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] gpiolib: cdev: Utilize more bitmap APIs

[Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 12:32:22PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 05:25:05PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 12:05:11PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 10:23:12PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 04:59:34PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 09:49:35PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 03:17:06PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 09:32:11AM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > > > > Yet, it opens a way to scale this in case we might have v3 ABI that let's say
> > > > > > > allows to work with 512 GPIOs at a time. With your code it will be much harder
> > > > > > > to achieve and see what you wrote about maintenance (in that case).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > v3 ABI?? libgpiod v2 is barely out the door!
> > > > > > Do you have any cases where 64 lines per request is limiting?
> > > > > 
> > > > > IIRC it was SO question where the OP asks exactly about breaking the 64 lines
> > > > > limitation in the current ABI.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > If that sort of speculation isn't premature optimisation then I don't know
> > > > > > what is.
> > > > > 
> > > > > No, based on the real question / discussion, just have no link at hand.
> > > > > But it's quite a niche, I can agree.
> > > > 
> > > > Let me know if you find a ref to that discussion - I'm curious.
> > > 
> > > Here it is (read comments as well):
> > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/76307370/control-gpio-from-linux-userspace-with-linux-gpio-h
> > > 
> > 
> > That question looks to me to be confusing how many GPIOs can be
> > requested per request (64) and in total (effectively unlimited) - thinking
> > they are the same.
> > That could be due to their desire to use the gpiod_chip_get_all_lines()
> > convenience function with a chip with more than 64 lines, rather than
> > because they have an actual need for the lines to be managed in a single
> > request.
> > 
> > So that doesn't look like a genuine use case to me - just a "what if I
> > want to do X" question.  Certainly not something that would warrant a v3
> > ABI.
> 
> Sure, and I'm not talking about v3 ABI to go for, see the word "might" in my
> reply in the first paragraph of this message.
> 

Ok, so your original point was pure speculation.

Cheers,
Kent.