Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86, intel_mid: ADC management

[Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1672 bytes --]

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 #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]