Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-46090-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240125081601.118051-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
 <CAMRc=MesG1nYSxx0osmQEEXCvs-6B4s4=TFYW5wD8pOXpV+OcQ@mail.gmail.com> <a3d24e7d-404e-4c02-99a2-8838ee7028c9@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <a3d24e7d-404e-4c02-99a2-8838ee7028c9@linaro.org>
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 10:00:05 +0100
Message-ID: <CACRpkdaus1oRCiafiJjqTkARcKBuxvNfeqDrve7ZdG4UqnNX5A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] gpiolib: add gpiod_to_gpio_device() stub for !GPIOLIB
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>, Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, 
	Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 9:59=E2=80=AFAM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:

> [Bart]
> > Why is this needed? Users of gpio/driver.h should select GPIOLIB.
>
> The third patch shows you the user which will not select GPIOLIB. Why?
> Because there is no hard dependency between one core framework (RESET)
> on other core framework (GPIOLIB).
>
> The first two patches are added for the same purpose, even though there
> is no need currently.

That reset driver implementing a GPIO chip has not been reviewed by the
GPIO maintainers so I looked up the patch and replied, we have
review comments.

Yours,
Linus Walleij