On Tuesday 29 April 2008, Trent Piepho wrote:
quoted text
> 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!".


quoted text
> >> 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

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/