From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3E922C80; Thu, 13 Mar 2025 09:19:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.17 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741857576; cv=none; b=cdxvLuC+uxgrjuXw5i9PKbRJa/mpFAFKiTFJJGIUd+T9gZMR93NoY4w9CMN8daEXDbnWyOar/hrZNLOT3+BFeMLEdWaBvz2AU35vDd1fAAHDf8MWpa+j5cpdOmfFITCTVZmjecftc0zhgF9fHreMgw49teE8ieP/lBINrTNIZuM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741857576; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5buOl5HRVkX0rlEUW5blnF61KqXtRuzagl4PFP8Z7lg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=GpFgDMhe/N/F7bwNaesYQu24ZRd6eU4oIkuwZ05qa8XzU938Yxgy48xDqzGFuUCpZHxqFa5spr8ttkaIsA/gqPIjsYMwiRcQyQGlL/KmsY9hwqf1BhxUfrWhrYocKQ7OGC5IfHG5BUYdd03/P7pCw9L2vorS74hleCRna0nC8+I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=fm+FYXMG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.17 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="fm+FYXMG" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1741857574; x=1773393574; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=5buOl5HRVkX0rlEUW5blnF61KqXtRuzagl4PFP8Z7lg=; b=fm+FYXMGwv7c4b3BPRdg0ugym8ih/IHO7VtNHNLatguDh32AQG17P8Ps FMu+8DWJ0yOIoSLFc8t0yW4O78aSXm3fyK3oy34PfogfZo1aq0wYN2Llm hU8S2m1mTi1oeGgcLs2OfkgE1iQ3qEHOLPr9dQv7u8JHDStg3ek5cG5/x m+BC2Kxfl5npMVoMB1hNU2WC3vcZ5pMXGdgUidhcSr5IkPRct3Te+CSuF 3nSe3DRlylb5hOfqZJchWEd70VyVYPZGwm4iebOmQ/XBNCQQuwLtGPBIh OEWKrnd9su5IZpeFeIocuzsl/z+l2JsWm5h/p91wn9sQz4AD32o8tL2uS Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: DZL3+Zq+Rn2qPS94PHY5zA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 6eOrnNxDSv6A85u7cx5PmQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11371"; a="42843965" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.14,244,1736841600"; d="scan'208";a="42843965" Received: from fmviesa003.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.143]) by fmvoesa111.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Mar 2025 02:19:33 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: /McIbDYgRE2AHQ6LGYM7bA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: tBR3Hcn+QQiQesms5Vxg+Q== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.14,244,1736841600"; d="scan'208";a="125061786" Received: from black.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.28]) by fmviesa003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Mar 2025 02:19:31 -0700 Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 11:19:28 +0200 From: Raag Jadav To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: lee@kernel.org, giometti@enneenne.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, raymond.tan@intel.com, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] gpio: elkhartlake: depend on MFD_INTEL_EHL_PSE_GPIO Message-ID: References: <20250307052231.551737-1-raag.jadav@intel.com> <20250307052231.551737-3-raag.jadav@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 08:32:51PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 07:03:01PM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 01:00:35PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 08:37:26AM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 10:52:28AM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote: > > > > > Now that we have Intel MFD driver for PSE GPIO, depend on it. > > > > > > > Andy, any guidance on GPIO? > > > > > > I'm not sure what we are waiting here from me. Hadn't I reviewed your GPIO > > > part already? > > > > Ah, I added MFD dependency for leaf drivers after your v1 review. > > So this one seems missing the tag. Can I add it? > > I see, but this can be added later on. > And on the second thought, do we accept the configurations > when user wants to have GPIO on EHL, and doesn't care about TIO? Yes, here we're making the leaf driver (GPIO) depend on MFD regardless of what TIO config is. > Maybe this patch is not needed after all? My understanding is that GPIO should depend on MFD. Not much point in adding a standalone leaf driver right? Raag