Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] x86/platform: (TS-5500) add GPIO support

From: Guenter Roeck
Date: Thu Feb 02 2012 - 14:36:47 EST

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.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at