From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932113Ab2GBQIi (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:08:38 -0400 Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:41385 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754178Ab2GBQIf (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:08:35 -0400 Message-ID: <4FF1C780.9020003@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:08:32 -0600 From: Stephen Warren User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Brown CC: Liam Girdwood , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Warren , Rob Herring , Grant Likely Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] regulator: fixed: support deferred probe for DT GPIOs References: <1340987595-11288-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <20120701182300.GE28922@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4FF1C0D6.3010108@wwwdotorg.org> <20120702160340.GG25093@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> In-Reply-To: <20120702160340.GG25093@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/02/2012 10:03 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 09:40:06AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 07/01/2012 12:23 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> ...this just seems rubbish, why aren't we just fixing the >>> device tree code and why are we doing this at the device tree >>> level rather than as a general gpiolib thing? > >> It is being fixed in the DT code: > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/18/468 > > Is that patch actually being applied (especially with Grant's free > time issues)? I've still got the patch sitting in my inbox since > it wasn't clear what was going on. It sounds like Rob Herring will be helping out on this for a few weeks; see: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/2/3 "Re: SPI, GPIO, and DT maintainer ship (cry for help)" I cc'd Grant and Rob to make sure. >> However, it seemed best to make the regulator code work both >> before and after that patch. > > I'd be kind of inclined to just leave it broken to be honest rather > than having a huge comment and dodgy code. Hmmm. That would have made it kinda hard to use:-(