Messages in this thread | | | From | David Brownell <> | Subject | Re: [patch/rfc 2.6.25-git] gpio: sysfs interface | Date | Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:49:06 -0700 |
| |
On Tuesday 29 April 2008, Trent Piepho wrote: > On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, David Brownell wrote: > > > >> If anything, > >> the parsing code is simpler than what David has. > > > > Apples vs oranges. Use the same command syntax if you're going > > to make comparisons; I can save even more with "+export/-unexport" > > syntax. For comparable syntax, your stuff *IS* bigger. > > If the code you wrote it not too complex, then why is the code I wrote, which > is not larger, too complex?
Well, Andrew *did* object to the complexity. But that wasn't the point I was making there: you were comparing apples and oranges ... which makes it particularly easy to reach desired conclusions like "only *this* one tastes like oranges!".
> >> David's code for parsing the control file plus code for generating a mapping > >> range file would certainly be larger. > > > > The #3 option presumes some file listing chips and ranges too, > > since GPIOs are exported only on demand. Ditto #2 and #4... > > You never answered how one was supposed to get the proper device from a > script.
No I didn't. But that's why I liked Ben's suggestion of creating sysfs nodes for each gpio_chip. That's actually a good example of why folk like the one-value-per-attribute model with sysfs, at least for information that would be used with scripting.
- Dave
| |