On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 04:42:49PM +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote: > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Marcus Folkesson > <marcus.folkesson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> This is just one use case of those, you could also use it for > >> non-generic gpio functionality, like alarm, "full-on", internal clock, > >> external clock, etc. I believe it is always a bit tricky with MFD. I > >> personally prefer to put it into the chip driver because this is not > >> clearly a generic gpio interface here, and I need to drive it > >> dynamically. > > > > I agree. > > > > I think the solution with expose the "GPIOs" in sysfs is the right way to > > go. > > The chip-function is of a dynamic nature and should therefor not be set in > > platform data / devicetree. > > > > As mentioned before, GPIOs should use the gpio subsystem whenever possible, > > but the the gpio-functionality is just a subset of > > functions these pins may be set to. > > > > Also, the I think the *real* reason why the entries is called "gpio" is that > > it is so the registers are are mentioned in the datasheet. > > Everyone that is working with the device will know what it is all about. > > I see it more as an register expose than a gpio interface... > > > > I agree that the entries does not really fit here. But they does not fit > > better elsewhere either. > > And I don't think they fit worse than the alarm-entries that is already in > > mainline. > > > > Anyway, I think the documentation file should mention what function each > > valid value represent. > > Yes, makes sense to make the documentation more comprehensive. Thanks. > > Any other issues from anyone before submitting a polished version? > You'll have to get feedback from Jean. I won't accept the patch. Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
