On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Laszlo Papp <lp...@kde.org> 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.
OK. >> 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? Well, since we need to make sure that our product rocks and rolls, me and my employer would need be committed for a quite while, but I can understand where you are coming from. > Rewriting code is a natural part of the community process, > noone claimed it would be easy ;-) Yes, it is difficult, especially for a C++/OOP person like me... I am trying to do my best. >> 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. OK, thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
