From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.zeus03.de (zeus03.de [194.117.254.33]) (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 9ECC838757A for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2026 19:51:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.117.254.33 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770666718; cv=none; b=nop5n6JtmA/OJtPhAmgc7BjmUHBp1owbVSJWKLi1fGcGbePGr0SNE06PYf/BpzNRoXOTn1yfc+VRM+9w0bSFyghdpwYiP4vHDYBfsvdrd5EbJtw/DQurD5CTWFfu5+5mRMr9Ra2iOKDNpkM4RphENzRAHw/6fYWo4Ocfz87jwu4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770666718; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QbNxuK3tOvIXgmDYwedzBVTlP19K/BzDnWCsg1LTqx0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=me3fBdF0ZGfOnsQ1svGlRtL+4flbRWxNf8OZxpIEXsR9qx3LAPNo5OzvlN70St6RBgNOECYCT3ZWfIBm9w7FBbFm98F3n9hx731aUgQXNVFZUhTaNCKV+X1pVucja8iSKE6/Td5GbiGRFHYmPeBiPfx46hpFMAOps5/MSvUaCME= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sang-engineering.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sang-engineering.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sang-engineering.com header.i=@sang-engineering.com header.b=c8DMBDkx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.117.254.33 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sang-engineering.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sang-engineering.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sang-engineering.com header.i=@sang-engineering.com header.b="c8DMBDkx" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= sang-engineering.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=k1; bh=KT3v PAr9+jvW3mi9x8Y66vturr8FwJVBhekG/tpC6Zk=; b=c8DMBDkxMXgjYFjg5hpl di8EsVNS7YfG/wjaG4AjbGVDMKBYDw/F0jtxz1N8dV1hw7uq4pHlU6Ohlhp+4BvD qhMtxNA/ZaXedTK6SvYQGoZMiGaDveLpLtUI3o33sUlK/C85dvD2YjO41B8DhvmO pADRlu/On51sYmfx+BtG5svy13expgCyNbZXBcxl9oQXI1rcs4LciDgwCp5bm9i4 SbWspMzL8Nfs3Zy+Qy59J+2HEsehECs6xvPy0dvH5hDnlEFAiumfgWX3m4vJezU7 OupUsVSileDb1YP07j1KmpxYDFQ6+eYo1RNTrWvWHCBuilb0So9QcHdPDwtpBiIN Qw== Received: (qmail 1421036 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2026 20:51:47 +0100 Received: by mail.zeus03.de with UTF8SMTPSA (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted, authenticated); 9 Feb 2026 20:51:47 +0100 X-UD-Smtp-Session: l3s3148p1@B1IbeGlKqNoujnuv Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 20:51:46 +0100 From: Wolfram Sang To: Bjorn Andersson Cc: Andy Shevchenko , Baolin Wang , linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, Alexandre Torgue , Andy Shevchenko , Antonio Borneo , Arnd Bergmann , Boqun Feng , Chen-Yu Tsai , Chunyan Zhang , Danilo Krummrich , David Lechner , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Ingo Molnar , Jernej Skrabec , Jonathan Cameron , Jonathan Corbet , Konrad Dybcio , Lee Jones , Linus Walleij , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com, linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev, Mark Brown , Maxime Coquelin , Nuno =?utf-8?B?U8Oh?= , Orson Zhai , Peter Zijlstra , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Samuel Holland , Shuah Khan , Srinivas Kandagatla , Thomas Gleixner , Waiman Long , Wilken Gottwalt , Will Deacon Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] hwspinlock: refactor headers into public provider/consumer pair Message-ID: References: <20260125184654.17843-6-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.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: Hi Bjorn, thanks for the reply! > > Moving maintainers from CC to To ;) Do you, in general, approve this > > change to the headers? > > Certainly, I don't think we should force unnatural slicing of drivers > across the source tree. Cool, glad you like it. > I've always found the current model unergonomic, resolving this part > might very well have the side effect that Andy is looking for (and I'd > welcome that). Yeah probably, but frankly the task of redesigning hwlock-allocation is a bit exceeding my bandwidth for this project. Can we make this a second step on top of this series? And if so, would be this series acceptable as-is then (modulo the better include-sorting mentioned by Andy)? Hope you are well, Wolfram