Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86, intel_mid: ADC management
From: Mark Brown
Date: Tue Apr 10 2012 - 11:19:44 EST
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 03:15:29PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Could you be more specific about what this early boot time stuff is?
> > Looking at the changelogs in there it all looks like the standard
> > battery monitoring and power supply stuff that these ADCs get used for -
> > just based on the changelogs there doesn't appear to be anything
> > remarkable here.
> It depends on the actual device but things the like battery management
> are a key one.
Right, like I say that all sounds totally standard and unremarkable.
> > We can't just keep on going round adding new custom interfaces every
> > time someone supports a new SoC - it means we end up having to sit and
> We can't go around blocking entire platforms because of the IIO blob. I
> raised this point with the whole previous *generation* of Intel SoC
> devices about IIO and nothing has been done about it.
Including by Intel, of course.
> Get IIO out of staing and we can look at it, until then IIO is staging
> code, it's not part of the kernel, it may never be part of the kernel,
> and it should never block actual kernel code.
That's not where the rest of the embedded community has been coming from
on this stuff and from a deployment point of view staging isn't really
that big a blocker to users. We've had a lot of experience with trying
to follow that approach and the results haven't been great thus far.
Frankly at this point I don't understand why we can't just lift IIO out
of staging as-is, perhaps with the userspace ABI nobbled or moved into
debugfs for the time being if that's still a concern. Alternatively
there is the option of you proposing some other generic framework.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature