GENERIC_GPIO considered deprecated

GENERIC_GPIO considered deprecated

[Alexandre Courbot]

Hi Romain,

I have submitted a series of patches that deprecates the use of
GENERIC_GPIO as a first step towards the consolidation of GPIO around
gpiolib. The goal of this set of to remove all "select GENERIC_GPIO"
instances and it should be merged into linux-next starting from today.

I noticed that your patch "ARM: S3C24XX: Add samsung-time support for
s3c24xx" adds two new selections of GENERIC_GPIO - would you mind
changing them to "select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB" for consistency with my
change? The result should be the same on your side.

Thanks,
Alex.

Re: GENERIC_GPIO considered deprecated

[Romain Naour]

Le 21/03/2013 03:15, Alexandre Courbot a écrit :
> Hi Romain,
>
> I have submitted a series of patches that deprecates the use of
> GENERIC_GPIO as a first step towards the consolidation of GPIO around
> gpiolib. The goal of this set of to remove all "select GENERIC_GPIO"
> instances and it should be merged into linux-next starting from today.
>
> I noticed that your patch "ARM: S3C24XX: Add samsung-time support for
> s3c24xx" adds two new selections of GENERIC_GPIO - would you mind
> changing them to "select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB" for consistency with my
> change? The result should be the same on your side.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex.
>

Hi Alex,

When I read your mail, I was surprised that you were speaking about 
GPIOs, my pathes for samsung CPUs are intended for timer sub-system.

As you can see in this thread, when I send my patches "ARM: S3C24XX: Add 
samsung-time support for s3c24xx" and "Add samsung-time support for 
s5pc100". They didn't add "select GENERIC_GPIO".
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.samsung-soc/13432/focus=14980
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.samsung-soc/13432/focus=14982

There is something wrong with the commit, I see that "select 
GENERIC_GPIO" was added in my patches by mistake.

I recommend you to speak directly with samsung's kernel maintainer that 
I CC in this mail.

Regards,
Romain Naour

Re: GENERIC_GPIO considered deprecated

[Alexandre Courbot]

Hi Romain,

On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Romain Naour <romain.naour@openwide.fr> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> When I read your mail, I was surprised that you were speaking about GPIOs, my pathes for samsung CPUs are intended for timer sub-system.
>
> As you can see in this thread, when I send my patches "ARM: S3C24XX: Add samsung-time support for s3c24xx" and "Add samsung-time support for s5pc100". They didn't add "select GENERIC_GPIO".
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.samsung-soc/13432/focus=14980
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.samsung-soc/13432/focus=14982
>
> There is something wrong with the commit, I see that "select GENERIC_GPIO" was added in my patches by mistake.
>
> I recommend you to speak directly with samsung's kernel maintainer that I CC in this mail.

Indeed, it seems like these "select GENERIC_GPIO" have been added
during the merge of your patches, since I can see the line is here in
your patch (but not added by it). Kim, on the current next there are
two of these "select GENERIC_GPIO" that are added from your branch,
could you amend the patches that adds them such as they get changed
into "select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB" instead? You can grep for "select
GENERIC_GPIO" in arch/arm to find the offending lines. We are removing
GENERIC_GPIO and this work cannot be merged until you do this since it
would break ARM builds. Thanks!

Alex.

RE: GENERIC_GPIO considered deprecated

[Kukjin Kim]

Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> 
> Hi Romain,
> 
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Romain Naour <romain.naour@openwide.fr>
> wrote:
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > When I read your mail, I was surprised that you were speaking about
> GPIOs, my pathes for samsung CPUs are intended for timer sub-system.
> >
> > As you can see in this thread, when I send my patches "ARM: S3C24XX: Add
> samsung-time support for s3c24xx" and "Add samsung-time support for
> s5pc100". They didn't add "select GENERIC_GPIO".
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.samsung-soc/13432/focus=14980
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.samsung-soc/13432/focus=14982
> >
> > There is something wrong with the commit, I see that "select
> GENERIC_GPIO" was added in my patches by mistake.

Oops, sorry about that.

> >
> > I recommend you to speak directly with samsung's kernel maintainer that
> I CC in this mail.
> 
Thanks...

> Indeed, it seems like these "select GENERIC_GPIO" have been added
> during the merge of your patches, since I can see the line is here in
> your patch (but not added by it). Kim, on the current next there are
> two of these "select GENERIC_GPIO" that are added from your branch,

OK, I see.

> could you amend the patches that adds them such as they get changed
> into "select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB" instead? You can grep for "select

I can do it for my tree but the branch already included in arm-soc tree so I think, it should be fixed with another patch. And 

> GENERIC_GPIO" in arch/arm to find the offending lines. We are removing
> GENERIC_GPIO and this work cannot be merged until you do this since it
> would break ARM builds. Thanks!
> 
So how about following? If you are OK, let me take into samsung tree.

--------8<----------------8<--------
From: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: SAMSUNG: change GENERIC_GPIO to ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB

When I applied regarding samsung-time patches, the "select GENERIC_GPIO"
has been added wrong, so this patch fixes that.
And since the GENERIC_GPIO in arch/arm/ will be gone away, this adds
ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB for S3C24XX and S5PC100 instead.

Reported-by: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>
Cc: Romain Naour <romain.naour@openwide.fr>
Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/Kconfig |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
index 46fcfa8..a239c7e 100644
--- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
@@ -770,10 +770,10 @@ config ARCH_SA1100
 config ARCH_S3C24XX
 	bool "Samsung S3C24XX SoCs"
 	select ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ
+	select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
 	select CLKDEV_LOOKUP
 	select CLKSRC_MMIO
 	select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
-	select GENERIC_GPIO
 	select HAVE_CLK
 	select HAVE_S3C2410_I2C if I2C
 	select HAVE_S3C2410_WATCHDOG if WATCHDOG
@@ -828,11 +828,11 @@ config ARCH_S5P64X0
 
 config ARCH_S5PC100
 	bool "Samsung S5PC100"
+	select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
 	select CLKDEV_LOOKUP
 	select CLKSRC_MMIO
 	select CPU_V7
 	select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
-	select GENERIC_GPIO
 	select HAVE_CLK
 	select HAVE_S3C2410_I2C if I2C
 	select HAVE_S3C2410_WATCHDOG if WATCHDOG
-- 
1.7.10.4

Re: GENERIC_GPIO considered deprecated

[Alexandre Courbot]

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
>> could you amend the patches that adds them such as they get changed
>> into "select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB" instead? You can grep for "select
>
> I can do it for my tree but the branch already included in arm-soc tree so I think, it should be fixed with another patch. And
>
>> GENERIC_GPIO" in arch/arm to find the offending lines. We are removing
>> GENERIC_GPIO and this work cannot be merged until you do this since it
>> would break ARM builds. Thanks!
>>
> So how about following? If you are OK, let me take into samsung tree.
>
> --------8<----------------8<--------
> From: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] ARM: SAMSUNG: change GENERIC_GPIO to ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
>
> When I applied regarding samsung-time patches, the "select GENERIC_GPIO"
> has been added wrong, so this patch fixes that.
> And since the GENERIC_GPIO in arch/arm/ will be gone away, this adds
> ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB for S3C24XX and S5PC100 instead.
>
> Reported-by: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>
> Cc: Romain Naour <romain.naour@openwide.fr>
> Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/Kconfig |    4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> index 46fcfa8..a239c7e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> @@ -770,10 +770,10 @@ config ARCH_SA1100
>  config ARCH_S3C24XX
>         bool "Samsung S3C24XX SoCs"
>         select ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ
> +       select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
>         select CLKDEV_LOOKUP
>         select CLKSRC_MMIO
>         select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
> -       select GENERIC_GPIO
>         select HAVE_CLK
>         select HAVE_S3C2410_I2C if I2C
>         select HAVE_S3C2410_WATCHDOG if WATCHDOG
> @@ -828,11 +828,11 @@ config ARCH_S5P64X0
>
>  config ARCH_S5PC100
>         bool "Samsung S5PC100"
> +       select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
>         select CLKDEV_LOOKUP
>         select CLKSRC_MMIO
>         select CPU_V7
>         select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
> -       select GENERIC_GPIO
>         select HAVE_CLK
>         select HAVE_S3C2410_I2C if I2C
>         select HAVE_S3C2410_WATCHDOG if WATCHDOG
> --
> 1.7.10.4

Should do the trick, if we can make sure that your tree is merged
prior to my patches. Can you put it into your tree for 3.10?

Thanks!
Alex.

RE: GENERIC_GPIO considered deprecated

[Kukjin Kim]

Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
> >> could you amend the patches that adds them such as they get changed
> >> into "select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB" instead? You can grep for "select
> >
> > I can do it for my tree but the branch already included in arm-soc tree
> so I think, it should be fixed with another patch. And
> >
> >> GENERIC_GPIO" in arch/arm to find the offending lines. We are removing
> >> GENERIC_GPIO and this work cannot be merged until you do this since it
> >> would break ARM builds. Thanks!
> >>
> > So how about following? If you are OK, let me take into samsung tree.
> >
> > --------8<----------------8<--------
> > From: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH] ARM: SAMSUNG: change GENERIC_GPIO to
> ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
> >
> > When I applied regarding samsung-time patches, the "select GENERIC_GPIO"
> > has been added wrong, so this patch fixes that.
> > And since the GENERIC_GPIO in arch/arm/ will be gone away, this adds
> > ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB for S3C24XX and S5PC100 instead.
> >
> > Reported-by: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Romain Naour <romain.naour@openwide.fr>
> > Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/Kconfig |    4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > index 46fcfa8..a239c7e 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > @@ -770,10 +770,10 @@ config ARCH_SA1100
> >  config ARCH_S3C24XX
> >         bool "Samsung S3C24XX SoCs"
> >         select ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ
> > +       select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
> >         select CLKDEV_LOOKUP
> >         select CLKSRC_MMIO
> >         select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
> > -       select GENERIC_GPIO
> >         select HAVE_CLK
> >         select HAVE_S3C2410_I2C if I2C
> >         select HAVE_S3C2410_WATCHDOG if WATCHDOG
> > @@ -828,11 +828,11 @@ config ARCH_S5P64X0
> >
> >  config ARCH_S5PC100
> >         bool "Samsung S5PC100"
> > +       select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
> >         select CLKDEV_LOOKUP
> >         select CLKSRC_MMIO
> >         select CPU_V7
> >         select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
> > -       select GENERIC_GPIO
> >         select HAVE_CLK
> >         select HAVE_S3C2410_I2C if I2C
> >         select HAVE_S3C2410_WATCHDOG if WATCHDOG
> > --
> > 1.7.10.4
> 
> Should do the trick, if we can make sure that your tree is merged
> prior to my patches.

I'm not sure but I think, arm-soc tree should be merged into mainline before others...

> Can you put it into your tree for 3.10?
> 
I did, so it should be fine.

Thanks.

- Kukjin

Re: GENERIC_GPIO considered deprecated

[Stephen Warren]

On 04/08/2013 01:31 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
>>>> could you amend the patches that adds them such as they get changed
>>>> into "select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB" instead? You can grep for "select
>>>
>>> I can do it for my tree but the branch already included in arm-soc tree
>> so I think, it should be fixed with another patch. And
>>>
>>>> GENERIC_GPIO" in arch/arm to find the offending lines. We are removing
>>>> GENERIC_GPIO and this work cannot be merged until you do this since it
>>>> would break ARM builds. Thanks!
>>>>
>>> So how about following? If you are OK, let me take into samsung tree.
>>>
>>> --------8<----------------8<--------
>>> From: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
>>> Subject: [PATCH] ARM: SAMSUNG: change GENERIC_GPIO to
>> ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
>>>
>>> When I applied regarding samsung-time patches, the "select GENERIC_GPIO"
>>> has been added wrong, so this patch fixes that.
>>> And since the GENERIC_GPIO in arch/arm/ will be gone away, this adds
>>> ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB for S3C24XX and S5PC100 instead.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Romain Naour <romain.naour@openwide.fr>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm/Kconfig |    4 ++--
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
>>> index 46fcfa8..a239c7e 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
>>> @@ -770,10 +770,10 @@ config ARCH_SA1100
>>>  config ARCH_S3C24XX
>>>         bool "Samsung S3C24XX SoCs"
>>>         select ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ
>>> +       select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
>>>         select CLKDEV_LOOKUP
>>>         select CLKSRC_MMIO
>>>         select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
>>> -       select GENERIC_GPIO
>>>         select HAVE_CLK
>>>         select HAVE_S3C2410_I2C if I2C
>>>         select HAVE_S3C2410_WATCHDOG if WATCHDOG
>>> @@ -828,11 +828,11 @@ config ARCH_S5P64X0
>>>
>>>  config ARCH_S5PC100
>>>         bool "Samsung S5PC100"
>>> +       select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
>>>         select CLKDEV_LOOKUP
>>>         select CLKSRC_MMIO
>>>         select CPU_V7
>>>         select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
>>> -       select GENERIC_GPIO
>>>         select HAVE_CLK
>>>         select HAVE_S3C2410_I2C if I2C
>>>         select HAVE_S3C2410_WATCHDOG if WATCHDOG
>>> --
>>> 1.7.10.4
>>
>> Should do the trick, if we can make sure that your tree is merged
>> prior to my patches.
> 
> I'm not sure but I think, arm-soc tree should be merged into mainline before others...
> 
>> Can you put it into your tree for 3.10?
>>
> I did, so it should be fine.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> - Kukjin

You may want to discuss how to handle this dependency with the arm-soc
maintainers (CC'd).

GENERIC_GPIO considered deprecated

[Stephen Warren]

On 04/08/2013 01:31 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
>>>> could you amend the patches that adds them such as they get changed
>>>> into "select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB" instead? You can grep for "select
>>>
>>> I can do it for my tree but the branch already included in arm-soc tree
>> so I think, it should be fixed with another patch. And
>>>
>>>> GENERIC_GPIO" in arch/arm to find the offending lines. We are removing
>>>> GENERIC_GPIO and this work cannot be merged until you do this since it
>>>> would break ARM builds. Thanks!
>>>>
>>> So how about following? If you are OK, let me take into samsung tree.
>>>
>>> --------8<----------------8<--------
>>> From: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
>>> Subject: [PATCH] ARM: SAMSUNG: change GENERIC_GPIO to
>> ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
>>>
>>> When I applied regarding samsung-time patches, the "select GENERIC_GPIO"
>>> has been added wrong, so this patch fixes that.
>>> And since the GENERIC_GPIO in arch/arm/ will be gone away, this adds
>>> ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB for S3C24XX and S5PC100 instead.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Romain Naour <romain.naour@openwide.fr>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm/Kconfig |    4 ++--
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
>>> index 46fcfa8..a239c7e 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
>>> @@ -770,10 +770,10 @@ config ARCH_SA1100
>>>  config ARCH_S3C24XX
>>>         bool "Samsung S3C24XX SoCs"
>>>         select ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ
>>> +       select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
>>>         select CLKDEV_LOOKUP
>>>         select CLKSRC_MMIO
>>>         select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
>>> -       select GENERIC_GPIO
>>>         select HAVE_CLK
>>>         select HAVE_S3C2410_I2C if I2C
>>>         select HAVE_S3C2410_WATCHDOG if WATCHDOG
>>> @@ -828,11 +828,11 @@ config ARCH_S5P64X0
>>>
>>>  config ARCH_S5PC100
>>>         bool "Samsung S5PC100"
>>> +       select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
>>>         select CLKDEV_LOOKUP
>>>         select CLKSRC_MMIO
>>>         select CPU_V7
>>>         select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
>>> -       select GENERIC_GPIO
>>>         select HAVE_CLK
>>>         select HAVE_S3C2410_I2C if I2C
>>>         select HAVE_S3C2410_WATCHDOG if WATCHDOG
>>> --
>>> 1.7.10.4
>>
>> Should do the trick, if we can make sure that your tree is merged
>> prior to my patches.
> 
> I'm not sure but I think, arm-soc tree should be merged into mainline before others...
> 
>> Can you put it into your tree for 3.10?
>>
> I did, so it should be fine.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> - Kukjin

You may want to discuss how to handle this dependency with the arm-soc
maintainers (CC'd).

Re: GENERIC_GPIO considered deprecated

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Monday 08 April 2013, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >>
> >> Should do the trick, if we can make sure that your tree is merged
> >> prior to my patches.
> > 
> > I'm not sure but I think, arm-soc tree should be merged into mainline before others...
> > 
> >> Can you put it into your tree for 3.10?
> >>
> > I did, so it should be fine.
> > 
> 
> You may want to discuss how to handle this dependency with the arm-soc
> maintainers (CC'd).

I'm fine with putting the same branch into arm-soc as well as the gpio tree
and anything else that might need it, that tends to be the least invasive
way.

	Arnd

GENERIC_GPIO considered deprecated

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Monday 08 April 2013, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >>
> >> Should do the trick, if we can make sure that your tree is merged
> >> prior to my patches.
> > 
> > I'm not sure but I think, arm-soc tree should be merged into mainline before others...
> > 
> >> Can you put it into your tree for 3.10?
> >>
> > I did, so it should be fine.
> > 
> 
> You may want to discuss how to handle this dependency with the arm-soc
> maintainers (CC'd).

I'm fine with putting the same branch into arm-soc as well as the gpio tree
and anything else that might need it, that tends to be the least invasive
way.

	Arnd

Re: GENERIC_GPIO considered deprecated

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 926 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 21:36:44 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> On Monday 08 April 2013, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Should do the trick, if we can make sure that your tree is merged
> > >> prior to my patches.
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure but I think, arm-soc tree should be merged into mainline before others...
> > > 
> > >> Can you put it into your tree for 3.10?
> > >>
> > > I did, so it should be fine.
> > > 
> > 
> > You may want to discuss how to handle this dependency with the arm-soc
> > maintainers (CC'd).
> 
> I'm fine with putting the same branch into arm-soc as well as the gpio tree
> and anything else that might need it, that tends to be the least invasive
> way.

Just a reminder: that had better be the exact same branch and that branch
had better never be rebased/rewritten ...

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

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

GENERIC_GPIO considered deprecated

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 21:36:44 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> On Monday 08 April 2013, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Should do the trick, if we can make sure that your tree is merged
> > >> prior to my patches.
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure but I think, arm-soc tree should be merged into mainline before others...
> > > 
> > >> Can you put it into your tree for 3.10?
> > >>
> > > I did, so it should be fine.
> > > 
> > 
> > You may want to discuss how to handle this dependency with the arm-soc
> > maintainers (CC'd).
> 
> I'm fine with putting the same branch into arm-soc as well as the gpio tree
> and anything else that might need it, that tends to be the least invasive
> way.

Just a reminder: that had better be the exact same branch and that branch
had better never be rebased/rewritten ...

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr at canb.auug.org.au
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20130409/1f974ace/attachment-0001.sig>

Re: GENERIC_GPIO considered deprecated

[Alexandre Courbot]

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 21:36:44 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>>
>> On Monday 08 April 2013, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Should do the trick, if we can make sure that your tree is merged
>> > >> prior to my patches.
>> > >
>> > > I'm not sure but I think, arm-soc tree should be merged into mainline before others...
>> > >
>> > >> Can you put it into your tree for 3.10?
>> > >>
>> > > I did, so it should be fine.
>> > >
>> >
>> > You may want to discuss how to handle this dependency with the arm-soc
>> > maintainers (CC'd).
>>
>> I'm fine with putting the same branch into arm-soc as well as the gpio tree
>> and anything else that might need it, that tends to be the least invasive
>> way.
>
> Just a reminder: that had better be the exact same branch and that branch
> had better never be rebased/rewritten ...

Sorry, which branch are we talking about - is it the one I published
for -next initially? If so wouldn't it be simpler to withdraw it and
have Grant integrate the patches in his branch? Since no one depends
on them for now anyway...

I remember rebasing it once some time ago to add Acked-bys, but it
hasn't changed since then.

Alex.

GENERIC_GPIO considered deprecated

[Alexandre Courbot]

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 21:36:44 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>>
>> On Monday 08 April 2013, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Should do the trick, if we can make sure that your tree is merged
>> > >> prior to my patches.
>> > >
>> > > I'm not sure but I think, arm-soc tree should be merged into mainline before others...
>> > >
>> > >> Can you put it into your tree for 3.10?
>> > >>
>> > > I did, so it should be fine.
>> > >
>> >
>> > You may want to discuss how to handle this dependency with the arm-soc
>> > maintainers (CC'd).
>>
>> I'm fine with putting the same branch into arm-soc as well as the gpio tree
>> and anything else that might need it, that tends to be the least invasive
>> way.
>
> Just a reminder: that had better be the exact same branch and that branch
> had better never be rebased/rewritten ...

Sorry, which branch are we talking about - is it the one I published
for -next initially? If so wouldn't it be simpler to withdraw it and
have Grant integrate the patches in his branch? Since no one depends
on them for now anyway...

I remember rebasing it once some time ago to add Acked-bys, but it
hasn't changed since then.

Alex.

Re: GENERIC_GPIO considered deprecated

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1615 bytes --]

Hi,

On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 17:07:54 -0700 Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 21:36:44 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Monday 08 April 2013, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Should do the trick, if we can make sure that your tree is merged
> >> > >> prior to my patches.
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm not sure but I think, arm-soc tree should be merged into mainline before others...
> >> > >
> >> > >> Can you put it into your tree for 3.10?
> >> > >>
> >> > > I did, so it should be fine.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > You may want to discuss how to handle this dependency with the arm-soc
> >> > maintainers (CC'd).
> >>
> >> I'm fine with putting the same branch into arm-soc as well as the gpio tree
> >> and anything else that might need it, that tends to be the least invasive
> >> way.
> >
> > Just a reminder: that had better be the exact same branch and that branch
> > had better never be rebased/rewritten ...
> 
> Sorry, which branch are we talking about - is it the one I published
> for -next initially? If so wouldn't it be simpler to withdraw it and
> have Grant integrate the patches in his branch? Since no one depends
> on them for now anyway...
> 
> I remember rebasing it once some time ago to add Acked-bys, but it
> hasn't changed since then.

I am talking about the branch that Arnd says should be merged into both
the arm-soc and gpio trees.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

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

GENERIC_GPIO considered deprecated

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi,

On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 17:07:54 -0700 Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 21:36:44 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Monday 08 April 2013, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Should do the trick, if we can make sure that your tree is merged
> >> > >> prior to my patches.
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm not sure but I think, arm-soc tree should be merged into mainline before others...
> >> > >
> >> > >> Can you put it into your tree for 3.10?
> >> > >>
> >> > > I did, so it should be fine.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > You may want to discuss how to handle this dependency with the arm-soc
> >> > maintainers (CC'd).
> >>
> >> I'm fine with putting the same branch into arm-soc as well as the gpio tree
> >> and anything else that might need it, that tends to be the least invasive
> >> way.
> >
> > Just a reminder: that had better be the exact same branch and that branch
> > had better never be rebased/rewritten ...
> 
> Sorry, which branch are we talking about - is it the one I published
> for -next initially? If so wouldn't it be simpler to withdraw it and
> have Grant integrate the patches in his branch? Since no one depends
> on them for now anyway...
> 
> I remember rebasing it once some time ago to add Acked-bys, but it
> hasn't changed since then.

I am talking about the branch that Arnd says should be merged into both
the arm-soc and gpio trees.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr at canb.auug.org.au
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20130409/dcce9b66/attachment.sig>

RE: GENERIC_GPIO considered deprecated

[Kukjin Kim]

Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 17:07:54 -0700 Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 21:36:44 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Monday 08 April 2013, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Should do the trick, if we can make sure that your tree is
> merged
> > >> > >> prior to my patches.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I'm not sure but I think, arm-soc tree should be merged into
> mainline before others...
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> Can you put it into your tree for 3.10?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > > I did, so it should be fine.
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > You may want to discuss how to handle this dependency with the arm-
> soc
> > >> > maintainers (CC'd).
> > >>
> > >> I'm fine with putting the same branch into arm-soc as well as the
> gpio tree
> > >> and anything else that might need it, that tends to be the least
> invasive
> > >> way.
> > >
> > > Just a reminder: that had better be the exact same branch and that
> branch
> > > had better never be rebased/rewritten ...
> >
> > Sorry, which branch are we talking about - is it the one I published
> > for -next initially? If so wouldn't it be simpler to withdraw it and
> > have Grant integrate the patches in his branch? Since no one depends
> > on them for now anyway...
> >
> > I remember rebasing it once some time ago to add Acked-bys, but it
> > hasn't changed since then.
> 
> I am talking about the branch that Arnd says should be merged into both
> the arm-soc and gpio trees.
> 
Well, AFAIK, the problem including "select GENERIC_GPIO" happened only in
samsung tree so arm-soc tree is enough. If any problems, please let me know.

Arnd, just note, the fix is included in my pull-request [09/10].

Thanks.

- Kukjin

GENERIC_GPIO considered deprecated

[Kukjin Kim]

Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 17:07:54 -0700 Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 21:36:44 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Monday 08 April 2013, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Should do the trick, if we can make sure that your tree is
> merged
> > >> > >> prior to my patches.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I'm not sure but I think, arm-soc tree should be merged into
> mainline before others...
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> Can you put it into your tree for 3.10?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > > I did, so it should be fine.
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > You may want to discuss how to handle this dependency with the arm-
> soc
> > >> > maintainers (CC'd).
> > >>
> > >> I'm fine with putting the same branch into arm-soc as well as the
> gpio tree
> > >> and anything else that might need it, that tends to be the least
> invasive
> > >> way.
> > >
> > > Just a reminder: that had better be the exact same branch and that
> branch
> > > had better never be rebased/rewritten ...
> >
> > Sorry, which branch are we talking about - is it the one I published
> > for -next initially? If so wouldn't it be simpler to withdraw it and
> > have Grant integrate the patches in his branch? Since no one depends
> > on them for now anyway...
> >
> > I remember rebasing it once some time ago to add Acked-bys, but it
> > hasn't changed since then.
> 
> I am talking about the branch that Arnd says should be merged into both
> the arm-soc and gpio trees.
> 
Well, AFAIK, the problem including "select GENERIC_GPIO" happened only in
samsung tree so arm-soc tree is enough. If any problems, please let me know.

Arnd, just note, the fix is included in my pull-request [09/10].

Thanks.

- Kukjin