Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757317Ab2BBTgu (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:36:50 -0500 Received: from imr3.ericy.com ([198.24.6.13]:40912 "EHLO imr3.ericy.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753315Ab2BBTgs (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:36:48 -0500 Message-ID: <1328211236.2261.152.camel@groeck-laptop> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] x86/platform: (TS-5500) add GPIO support From: Guenter Roeck Reply-To: guenter.roeck@ericsson.com To: Alan Cox CC: Vivien Didelot , "x86@kernel.org" , Jerome Oufella , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org" , Jean Delvare Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:33:56 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20120201213025.53d820d2@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> References: <1328130344-18836-1-git-send-email-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> <1328130344-18836-3-git-send-email-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> <20120201213025.53d820d2@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> Organization: Ericsson Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2013 Lines: 48 On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 16:30 -0500, Alan Cox wrote: > > +obj-$(CONFIG_TS5500_GPIO) += ts5500_gpio.o > > Wants to be gpi-ts5500 and in the drivers/gpio directory. > I would agree, though there seem to be some disagreements about where such platform specific drivers should be located. From an earlier exchange I had with Vivien about this matter: > > > would be the appropriate location for a driver like this. As > > > mentioned before, my strong preference is drivers/hwmon, but I > > > would like to hear from others. > > > > We should either split every driver into corresponding > > subdirectories, or put everything in a common platform directory. > > My first RFC patches set has every driver separated. As they are > > really specific to the platform, people seem to agree with grouping > > them, mainly because they won't be shared. I changed that in the > > following patches sets, and X86 maintainers seemed to be ok with > > that. > > > > I'm ok with both solutions, but we should all agree on one. > > Maybe we should have other maintainers view on this? > > > That is what I had asked for. I thought the whole point of per-module > directories was to have all drivers there. If that is no longer true, > fine with me; who am I to argue about something like that. > I'd just like to know. > It looks like things are going back and forth a bit. If I were Vivien, I would be a bit frustrated by now and be close to giving up (Vivien, I really commend you for your patience). Is there a written guideline or policy people can look and point to if/when something like this comes up ? Otherwise we may have the LED/GPIO/xxx maintainers point one way, the X86 maintainers point the other way, and thus may have reached a complete deadlock. Guenter -- 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/