Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751634AbaAMMPL (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:15:11 -0500 Received: from mail-pd0-f169.google.com ([209.85.192.169]:46421 "EHLO mail-pd0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751253AbaAMMPI (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:15:08 -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 12:15:07 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: tPV9KbVJbyD-wnvOkvlvt16abg8 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 On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote: > >> 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? > > I will not accept the platform data setting the pull-ups. OK. >> 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. > > But you are still expecting me as a subsystem maintainer to > take responsibility of this driver for as long as I have this role? Well, since we need to make sure that our product rocks and rolls, me and my employer would need be committed for a quite while, but I can understand where you are coming from. > Rewriting code is a natural part of the community process, > noone claimed it would be easy ;-) Yes, it is difficult, especially for a C++/OOP person like me... I am trying to do my best. >> 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? > > Your driver already supports setting the pulls using a > *custom* platform data field. This is not OK, and shall be > implemented using the pin control subsystem. I will not > merge drivers using custom platform data fields like this. > > The reason that the pin control subsystem even existed was > that at the time my drivers were NACKed because I tried to > shoehorn pin control into the GPIO subsystem, and as a > result now we have an apropriate subsystem for it, so please > use it. OK, thanks. -- 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/