Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751520AbaLZULq (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Dec 2014 15:11:46 -0500 Received: from mail-la0-f51.google.com ([209.85.215.51]:63641 "EHLO mail-la0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751173AbaLZULo (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Dec 2014 15:11:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1419245407.30945.35.camel@x220> References: <1417038661-30209-1-git-send-email-bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com> <1417038661-30209-3-git-send-email-bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com> <1419245407.30945.35.camel@x220> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 12:11:42 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/3] mfd: qcom-rpm: Driver for the Qualcomm RPM From: Bjorn Andersson To: Paul Bolle , Lee Jones Cc: Bjorn Andersson , Mark Brown , Valentin Rothberg , Rob Herring , Josh Cartwright , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , linux-arm-msm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 2:50 AM, Paul Bolle wrote: > Hi Bjorn, > Hi Paul [..] > > The Qualcomm RPM regulator driver (see Kconfig symbol > REGULATOR_QCOM_RPM) was added in v3.18. It depends on the above symbol, > so it has not yet gotten build coverage. Even manual hacks like > make -C ../.. M=$PWD CONFIG_REGULATOR_QCOM_RPM=m qcom_rpm-regulator.ko > > won't work for that driver, because it includes linux/mfd/qcom_rpm.h, > which is not part of the tree. > Correct, but unfortunately Lee Jones awaits devicetree maintainers ack (or any comment) and have been doing so for months now. I did send out a ping a few weeks ago, but might have done so when they where occupied by the merge window. Lee, the Qualcomm RPM binding is not for a subsystem and is limited to Qualcomm devices. Could we apply this in accordance with II.2 in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt or is there anything I could do to make you feel comfortable doing so? > It seems there's no generally agreed upon guideline for situations like > this. So I guess it's up to Mark to decide how long the tree should > include an unbuildable driver. > I haven't seen any guidelines, but appreciate Mark's way of working in this matter - as we've been able to run our devices with fewer out-of-tree patches. Regards, Bjorn -- 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/