Re: [libgpiod] Some thoughts following a brief test of libgpiod ver 2.1

[Seamus de Mora <seamusdemora@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 5:25 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 01:47:54PM -0600, Seamus de Mora wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 3:49 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
   [ snip ]
> >     gpioset does *not exit* because people complained about lack of
> >     persistence. When the persistence issue was fixed in the driver,
> >     we also fixed it in gpioset by not allowing it to exit.
> >
> > Have I got that right??
> >
> > If so, why not stick by your initial assertion that persistence is a
> > driver issue - not a libgpiod issue?
> >
> > I won't make a recommendation - or tell you what I *think/feel* -
> > because I know "you don't care", but if this is the case...
> >
>
> The behaviour was changed in A driver, and as noted by Stefan even that
> is in the vendor tree, not the mainline tree.
>
> Your perspective is too narrow - we need to deal with the general case.

Probably my perspective is rather narrow; as I said at the top of this
thread, "I have zero Linux kernel experience."

But I know that we need persistence, and it should be possible to get
that in a rational fashion. But not to worry, I'll try to find an
explanation for all of this  that makes sense to one with a narrow
perspective.

Best Rgds,
~S