Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751422AbaAMJWu (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jan 2014 04:22:50 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f42.google.com ([209.85.220.42]:48704 "EHLO mail-pa0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751354AbaAMJWq (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jan 2014 04:22:46 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1387814889-16670-1-git-send-email-lpapp@kde.org> <1387814889-16670-4-git-send-email-lpapp@kde.org> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:22:45 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: -d1TRTelLgvoFrfChpJmPLvbxCw Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] gpio: MAX6650/6651 support From: Laszlo Papp To: Linus Walleij Cc: Guenter Roeck , Lee Jones , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>> +#define PIN_NUMBER 5 >> >> As I can see this is really a GPIO+pin control driver it shall be >> moved to drivers/pinctrl. > > Hmm, but then I am not sure why the gpio-max*.c are similar in the > drivers/gpio area. Could you please elaborate? They are somewhat > similar to my understanding, but perhaps there is some fundamental > difference I am not aware of? I was giving a second thought to this. Would it be acceptable to add the gpio driver now, and once the need arises, add the pinctrl thin layer on top of it? My concern is that I would not use anything else than the gpio functionality of these pins. It would be a needless additional work (i.e. investment) for my project and employer. Perhaps, the layer on top of that can be added later without any drawback if anyone ever finds the need to have more functionality supported by these pins? Shall look forward to hearing your opinion. -- 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/