| Message ID | 20201210132315.5785-1-brgl@bgdev.pl |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | treewide: start shaving off cruft for v2.0 | expand |
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 02:23:01PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> > > The following series removes a lot of interfaces that were deemed overkill > in libgpiod and the removal of which was suggested to me before proceeding > with the new API. > > This leaves a couple holes in the library but we'll follow them up with > more improvements all over the tree. We'll create a new object called > gpiod_request for dealing with line requests of arbitrary size. We'll > probably remove the the bulk objects from bindings and eventually we'll > switch to using the v2 kernel uAPI. > > Andy - a note for you: I know you're always very thorough in your reviews > but in this case let's consider this series preparing a construction zone > for the new API. Please don't nitpick too much. :) I don't know what you are talking about. The series looks nice, esp. taking into account statistics! FWIW, Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> One side note, though. Are you already plan to support autotools-2.70? > Bartosz Golaszewski (14): > bindings: cxx: check for error from gpiod_line_bulk_new() > build: drop the message about tests having been built successfully > core: export gpiod_is_gpiochip_device() > bulk: drop the limit on the max number of lines > core: drop line iterators > treewide: kill opening chips by label > API: move gpiod_line_get_chip() to line attributes section > core: kill gpiod_line_close_chip() > core: kill gpiod_line_get() > treewide: kill global line lookup > treewide: kill find_lines() > core: rework gpiod_chip_find_line() > build: add a configure switch for building examples > core: kill chip iterators > > bindings/cxx/Makefile.am | 8 +- > bindings/cxx/chip.cpp | 47 +-- > bindings/cxx/examples/Makefile.am | 4 +- > bindings/cxx/examples/gpiodetectcxx.cpp | 13 +- > bindings/cxx/examples/gpiofindcxx.cpp | 18 +- > bindings/cxx/examples/gpioinfocxx.cpp | 43 ++- > bindings/cxx/gpiod.hpp | 147 +------- > bindings/cxx/iter.cpp | 95 +---- > bindings/cxx/line.cpp | 15 - > bindings/cxx/line_bulk.cpp | 24 +- > bindings/cxx/tests/tests-chip.cpp | 62 ++-- > bindings/cxx/tests/tests-iter.cpp | 37 -- > bindings/cxx/tests/tests-line.cpp | 19 - > bindings/python/Makefile.am | 10 +- > bindings/python/examples/gpiodetect.py | 12 +- > bindings/python/examples/gpiofind.py | 15 +- > bindings/python/examples/gpioinfo.py | 33 +- > bindings/python/gpiodmodule.c | 473 +++++++----------------- > bindings/python/tests/gpiod_py_test.py | 100 +---- > configure.ac | 12 + > include/gpiod.h | 258 ++----------- > lib/Makefile.am | 2 +- > lib/core.c | 12 +- > lib/helpers.c | 176 +++------ > lib/iter.c | 171 --------- > tests/Makefile.am | 13 - > tests/gpiod-test.h | 4 - > tests/tests-bulk.c | 9 - > tests/tests-chip.c | 97 +---- > tests/tests-iter.c | 123 ------ > tests/tests-line.c | 52 --- > tools/gpiodetect.c | 29 +- > tools/gpiofind.c | 34 +- > tools/gpioinfo.c | 41 +- > tools/gpiomon.c | 5 +- > tools/tools-common.c | 15 + > tools/tools-common.h | 3 + > 37 files changed, 557 insertions(+), 1674 deletions(-) > delete mode 100644 lib/iter.c > delete mode 100644 tests/tests-iter.c > > -- > 2.29.1 >
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 2:55 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 02:23:01PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> > > > > The following series removes a lot of interfaces that were deemed overkill > > in libgpiod and the removal of which was suggested to me before proceeding > > with the new API. > > > > This leaves a couple holes in the library but we'll follow them up with > > more improvements all over the tree. We'll create a new object called > > gpiod_request for dealing with line requests of arbitrary size. We'll > > probably remove the the bulk objects from bindings and eventually we'll > > switch to using the v2 kernel uAPI. > > > > Andy - a note for you: I know you're always very thorough in your reviews > > but in this case let's consider this series preparing a construction zone > > for the new API. Please don't nitpick too much. :) > > I don't know what you are talking about. The series looks nice, esp. taking > into account statistics! FWIW, > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > > One side note, though. Are you already plan to support autotools-2.70? > Isn't it already supported? 2.69 is the minimum version, 2.70 should just work. Bartosz
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 09:38:44AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 2:55 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 02:23:01PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> > > > > > > The following series removes a lot of interfaces that were deemed overkill > > > in libgpiod and the removal of which was suggested to me before proceeding > > > with the new API. > > > > > > This leaves a couple holes in the library but we'll follow them up with > > > more improvements all over the tree. We'll create a new object called > > > gpiod_request for dealing with line requests of arbitrary size. We'll > > > probably remove the the bulk objects from bindings and eventually we'll > > > switch to using the v2 kernel uAPI. > > > > > > Andy - a note for you: I know you're always very thorough in your reviews > > > but in this case let's consider this series preparing a construction zone > > > for the new API. Please don't nitpick too much. :) > > > > I don't know what you are talking about. The series looks nice, esp. taking > > into account statistics! FWIW, > > > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > > > > One side note, though. Are you already plan to support autotools-2.70? > > > > Isn't it already supported? 2.69 is the minimum version, 2.70 should just work. Have you read an article on LWN about changes [1]? There are a lot of incompatibilities (note between 2.69 and 2.70 _8_ years passed). [1]: https://lwn.net/Articles/839395/ -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 3:30 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 09:38:44AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 2:55 PM Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 02:23:01PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> > > > > > > > > The following series removes a lot of interfaces that were deemed overkill > > > > in libgpiod and the removal of which was suggested to me before proceeding > > > > with the new API. > > > > > > > > This leaves a couple holes in the library but we'll follow them up with > > > > more improvements all over the tree. We'll create a new object called > > > > gpiod_request for dealing with line requests of arbitrary size. We'll > > > > probably remove the the bulk objects from bindings and eventually we'll > > > > switch to using the v2 kernel uAPI. > > > > > > > > Andy - a note for you: I know you're always very thorough in your reviews > > > > but in this case let's consider this series preparing a construction zone > > > > for the new API. Please don't nitpick too much. :) > > > > > > I don't know what you are talking about. The series looks nice, esp. taking > > > into account statistics! FWIW, > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > One side note, though. Are you already plan to support autotools-2.70? > > > > > > > Isn't it already supported? 2.69 is the minimum version, 2.70 should just work. > > Have you read an article on LWN about changes [1]? There are a lot of > incompatibilities (note between 2.69 and 2.70 _8_ years passed). > > [1]: https://lwn.net/Articles/839395/ > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > > How will distros handle the incompatibilities? I don't think all projects - many no longer even supported - will suddenly switch to new autoconf. Bartosz
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 03:33:41PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 3:30 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 09:38:44AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 2:55 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 02:23:01PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: ... > > > > One side note, though. Are you already plan to support autotools-2.70? > > > > > > Isn't it already supported? 2.69 is the minimum version, 2.70 should just work. > > > > Have you read an article on LWN about changes [1]? There are a lot of > > incompatibilities (note between 2.69 and 2.70 _8_ years passed). > > > > [1]: https://lwn.net/Articles/839395/ > > How will distros handle the incompatibilities? I don't think all > projects - many no longer even supported - will suddenly switch to new > autoconf. It's PITA for distributions. Last time I remember that nice jump from 2.13 to 2.50. However, 2.69 should be closer to 2.70. I believe the distributions will patch all broken packages one-by-one. I think there is no need to keep two autoconf packages together in this case, but who knows, it might be a last resort. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 3:57 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 03:33:41PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 3:30 PM Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 09:38:44AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 2:55 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 02:23:01PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > ... > > > > > > One side note, though. Are you already plan to support autotools-2.70? > > > > > > > > Isn't it already supported? 2.69 is the minimum version, 2.70 should just work. > > > > > > Have you read an article on LWN about changes [1]? There are a lot of > > > incompatibilities (note between 2.69 and 2.70 _8_ years passed). > > > > > > [1]: https://lwn.net/Articles/839395/ > > > > How will distros handle the incompatibilities? I don't think all > > projects - many no longer even supported - will suddenly switch to new > > autoconf. > > It's PITA for distributions. Last time I remember that nice jump from 2.13 to 2.50. > However, 2.69 should be closer to 2.70. I believe the distributions will patch > all broken packages one-by-one. I think there is no need to keep two autoconf > packages together in this case, but who knows, it might be a last resort. > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > > Ok, so responding to your question: I'll upgrade to 2.70 once it's necessary. :) Bart
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 2:55 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 02:23:01PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> > > > > The following series removes a lot of interfaces that were deemed overkill > > in libgpiod and the removal of which was suggested to me before proceeding > > with the new API. > > > > This leaves a couple holes in the library but we'll follow them up with > > more improvements all over the tree. We'll create a new object called > > gpiod_request for dealing with line requests of arbitrary size. We'll > > probably remove the the bulk objects from bindings and eventually we'll > > switch to using the v2 kernel uAPI. > > > > Andy - a note for you: I know you're always very thorough in your reviews > > but in this case let's consider this series preparing a construction zone > > for the new API. Please don't nitpick too much. :) > > I don't know what you are talking about. The series looks nice, esp. taking > into account statistics! FWIW, > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > I applied the series so that we can move on. Since we're now getting per-chip unique lines, we'll probably have to redesign line lookup again but that's alright. Bartosz
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> The following series removes a lot of interfaces that were deemed overkill in libgpiod and the removal of which was suggested to me before proceeding with the new API. This leaves a couple holes in the library but we'll follow them up with more improvements all over the tree. We'll create a new object called gpiod_request for dealing with line requests of arbitrary size. We'll probably remove the the bulk objects from bindings and eventually we'll switch to using the v2 kernel uAPI. Andy - a note for you: I know you're always very thorough in your reviews but in this case let's consider this series preparing a construction zone for the new API. Please don't nitpick too much. :) Bartosz Golaszewski (14): bindings: cxx: check for error from gpiod_line_bulk_new() build: drop the message about tests having been built successfully core: export gpiod_is_gpiochip_device() bulk: drop the limit on the max number of lines core: drop line iterators treewide: kill opening chips by label API: move gpiod_line_get_chip() to line attributes section core: kill gpiod_line_close_chip() core: kill gpiod_line_get() treewide: kill global line lookup treewide: kill find_lines() core: rework gpiod_chip_find_line() build: add a configure switch for building examples core: kill chip iterators bindings/cxx/Makefile.am | 8 +- bindings/cxx/chip.cpp | 47 +-- bindings/cxx/examples/Makefile.am | 4 +- bindings/cxx/examples/gpiodetectcxx.cpp | 13 +- bindings/cxx/examples/gpiofindcxx.cpp | 18 +- bindings/cxx/examples/gpioinfocxx.cpp | 43 ++- bindings/cxx/gpiod.hpp | 147 +------- bindings/cxx/iter.cpp | 95 +---- bindings/cxx/line.cpp | 15 - bindings/cxx/line_bulk.cpp | 24 +- bindings/cxx/tests/tests-chip.cpp | 62 ++-- bindings/cxx/tests/tests-iter.cpp | 37 -- bindings/cxx/tests/tests-line.cpp | 19 - bindings/python/Makefile.am | 10 +- bindings/python/examples/gpiodetect.py | 12 +- bindings/python/examples/gpiofind.py | 15 +- bindings/python/examples/gpioinfo.py | 33 +- bindings/python/gpiodmodule.c | 473 +++++++----------------- bindings/python/tests/gpiod_py_test.py | 100 +---- configure.ac | 12 + include/gpiod.h | 258 ++----------- lib/Makefile.am | 2 +- lib/core.c | 12 +- lib/helpers.c | 176 +++------ lib/iter.c | 171 --------- tests/Makefile.am | 13 - tests/gpiod-test.h | 4 - tests/tests-bulk.c | 9 - tests/tests-chip.c | 97 +---- tests/tests-iter.c | 123 ------ tests/tests-line.c | 52 --- tools/gpiodetect.c | 29 +- tools/gpiofind.c | 34 +- tools/gpioinfo.c | 41 +- tools/gpiomon.c | 5 +- tools/tools-common.c | 15 + tools/tools-common.h | 3 + 37 files changed, 557 insertions(+), 1674 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 lib/iter.c delete mode 100644 tests/tests-iter.c