From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Walleij Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: pinctrl: sunxi: document new generic binding Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 11:52:28 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20171113012523.2328-1-andre.przywara@arm.com> <20171113012523.2328-2-andre.przywara@arm.com> <20171124105240.GB3792@ulmo> <20efcf8f-85a5-3cad-a84b-434ee5cad68e@arm.com> <20171124133123.GA15999@ulmo> <0c8051e6-5d8c-32d6-97e4-11c2283da5b4@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9_Przywara?= Cc: Thierry Reding , Maxime Ripard , Chen-Yu Tsai , linux-gpio-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , Linux ARM , Arnd Bergmann , Icenowy Zheng , "linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:55 AM, Andr=C3=A9 Przywara wrote: > On 01/12/17 09:56, Linus Walleij wrote: >> It is a valid cause. Just >> has to be weighed with other stuff, like maintainability, debuggability, >> maintainers viewpoint. ... > > So to keep Maxime happy I actually designed this "driver" more like a > shim: to generate the table the current driver expects from the DT, and > actually not touching the existing driver at all. > So maintainability should actually be less of a concern: the driver will > just work with whatever one throws at it from the DT side, without > requiring frequent changes or additions. > In the moment we still need to write, review and merge *data* files for > each new SoC. And as I mentioned before, Allwinner decided to push for > new, slightly different chips every few months, so there will be more to > come. With at least the pinctrl driver out of the way we have one > problem less to worry about. I think you need mainly to convince Maxime that this is something that he wants to maintain, going forward. I am as subsystem maintainer pretty pleased as long as standard properties etc are used to encode the data into the devicetree, and DT maintrainers are not actively vetoing what you do. If it leads to a conflict between Allwinner maintainers it is not worth the effort for reasons that are social rather than technical. To me it is a ver= y nice but as with all volunteer communities also very vulnerable endavour. Please make sure not to push your point so hard that it hurts your our your colleagues feelings. I know people are passionate about their ideas, which is usally good but also scare me sometimes because they sometimes become so passionate that it makes them bad team players. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html