Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon: (max6650) Add support for gpiodef

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 04:42:49PM +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Marcus Folkesson
> <marcus.folkesson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This is just one use case of those, you could also use it for
> >> non-generic gpio functionality, like alarm, "full-on", internal clock,
> >> external clock, etc. I believe it is always a bit tricky with MFD. I
> >> personally prefer to put it into the chip driver because this is not
> >> clearly a generic gpio interface here, and I need to drive it
> >> dynamically.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > I think the solution with expose the "GPIOs" in sysfs is the right way to
> > go.
> > The chip-function is of a dynamic nature and should therefor not be set in
> > platform data / devicetree.
> >
> > As mentioned before, GPIOs should use the gpio subsystem whenever possible,
> > but the the gpio-functionality is just a subset of
> > functions these pins may be set to.
> >
> > Also, the I think the *real* reason why the entries is called "gpio" is that
> > it is so the registers are are mentioned in the datasheet.
> > Everyone that is working with the device will know what it is all about.
> > I see it more as an register expose than a gpio interface...
> >
> > I agree that the entries does not really fit here. But they does not fit
> > better elsewhere either.
> > And I don't think they fit worse than the alarm-entries that is already in
> > mainline.
> >
> > Anyway, I think the documentation file should mention what function each
> > valid value represent.
> 
> Yes, makes sense to make the documentation more comprehensive. Thanks.
> 
> Any other issues from anyone before submitting a polished version?
> 
You'll have to get feedback from Jean. I won't accept the patch.

Guenter

_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors