From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Walleij Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] add gpio_chip_ops to hold GPIO operations Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:36:24 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1396981215-24888-1-git-send-email-javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:59831 "EHLO mail-ob0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755825AbaDVLgZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2014 07:36:25 -0400 Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id gq1so5470503obb.5 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 04:36:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1396981215-24888-1-git-send-email-javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk> Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Javier Martinez Canillas Cc: Alexandre Courbot , Mika Westerberg , Andy Shevchenko , Arnd Bergmann , Santosh Shilimkar , Kevin Hilman , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , Linux-OMAP , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > So this is an RFC patch-set to add a virtual table to be used by > GPIO chip controllers and consist of the following patches: Overall I like this. However I don't want to see any transitional phase. I prefer a BIG fat patch converting everyone and its dog to the new vtable and removing the old function pointers. This can be based on the HEAD of my GPIO devel branch. It may be a good idea to use coccinelle for this refactoring in order not to miss any users. Yours, Linus Walleij