GENERIC_GPIO considered deprecated

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

[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

[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>

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

[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>

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