Re: [PATCH 3/3] gpio: MAX6650/6651 support

[Linus Walleij]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> I was giving a second thought to this. Would it be acceptable to add
> the gpio driver now, and once the need arises, add the pinctrl thin
> layer on top of it?

I will not accept the platform data setting the pull-ups.

> My concern is that I would not use anything else
> than the gpio functionality of these pins. It would be a needless
> additional work (i.e. investment) for my project and employer.

But you are still expecting me as a subsystem maintainer to
take responsibility of this driver for as long as I have this role?

Rewriting code is a natural part of the community process,
noone claimed it would be easy ;-)

> Perhaps, the layer on top of that can be added later without any
> drawback if anyone ever finds the need to have more functionality
> supported by these pins?

Your driver already supports setting the pulls using a
*custom* platform data field. This is not OK, and shall be
implemented using the pin control subsystem. I will not
merge drivers using custom platform data fields like this.

The reason that the pin control subsystem even existed was
that at the time my drivers were NACKed because I tried to
shoehorn pin control into the GPIO subsystem, and as a
result now we have an apropriate subsystem for it, so please
use it.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/