[PATCH v5 1/3] gpio: Cygnus: define Broadcom Cygnus GPIO binding

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 09:06:15AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> <linux at arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:45:01AM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> >> Actually we are not that far from being able to do completely without
> >> any GPIO number, and maybe that's what we should aim for. I think the
> >> only remaining offender is the sysfs interface.
> >
> > And that is a user API, and there's lots of users of it (eg, on Raspberry
> > Pi platforms.)  So changing it isn't going to be easy - I'd say that it's
> > impractical.
> >
> > What you're suggesting would be like re-numbering Linux syscalls.
> 
> The problem is that right now if we set the .base of a gpio_chip
> to -1 for dynamic allocation of GPIO numbers and we have more
> than one GPIO chip in the system, the numbers basically depend
> on probe order, and may theoretically even differ between two boots.
> 
> So in these cases preserving the ABI means preserving the
> unpredictability of these assigned numbers or something.
> 
> For the old usecases with a single GPIO controller and a fixed
> base offset of e.g. 0 (which I suspect was implicit in the initial
> design of the subsystem) things work fine as always, it's these new
> dynamic use cases that destabilize the ABI.

Since GPIOs are exported through sysfs into userland by GPIO number,
and we know that there are users of it (see
https://github.com/pilight/wiringX) which hard encode GPIO numbers,
so this is *really* something that we as kernel developers can't
change without breaking such users.

So, what I'm saying is be very careful about moving to a fully
dynamic space: you could end up breaking userspace if you do.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.