Re: [PATCH 00/13] HID: ft260: add UART and GPIO support, plus I2C fixes

[Michael Zaidman <michael.zaidman@gmail.com>]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 at 21:51 +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> That's precisely what MFD is.  It's one chip, usually with a shared and
> overlapping register spaces, that conducts multiple functions.  This is
> no different to any other single-chip device or SoC.
>
> Shoving everything into a single driver isn't how things are done in
> Linux.  This should be divided up into the associated sub-systems where
> each part can be reviewed and looked after by the appropriate SMEs.

Understood, and I am not going to argue MFD scope with you. But this
is not specific to my series, so I would rather not decide it here on
my own.

drivers/hid already registers other subsystems' devices from a
hid_driver: hid-cp2112 adds an i2c_adapter and a gpiochip, hid-mcp2221
adds an i2c_adapter, a gpiochip and an IIO device, and hid-ft260 has
hosted the I2C adapter since v5.13, commit 6a82582d9fa4 ("HID: ft260:
add usb hid to i2c host bridge driver").

So the split you are asking for is not a change to this series. It
means moving code that has been in drivers/hid since v5.13 into an MFD
parent with cells, and the same reasoning would apply to cp2112 and
mcp2221. I am willing to discuss that as its own conversion, but it
needs the HID maintainers to agree on the direction first, and I do
not think the UART and GPIO support should wait behind it.

It would also spread the driver over four trees, so a fix touching the
shared chip state becomes a cross-tree series with coordinated merges
between four maintainers - a cost the single driver does not have.

Jiri, Benjamin - this is your call. Do you want FT260 functionality to
keep growing inside hid-ft260, as cp2112 and mcp2221 do today, or do
you want a drivers/hid to MFD conversion for this class of USB HID
bridge chips?

Thanks,
Michael