From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c-designware: add i2c gpio recovery option Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 17:02:56 +0300 Message-ID: <1494511376.6967.13.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <2259005.m0altzP21Z@dabox> <1966782.aCEMFj2YWU@virgo> <4a84d6b1-2bba-6f01-8286-49661ef45576@electromag.com.au> <32490844.DoY2McpBxU@dabox> <1494421981.16411.7.camel@linux.intel.com> <0aafcff1-6970-e99e-5b93-b0877ebf8579@electromag.com.au> <1494510791.6967.9.camel@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1494510791.6967.9.camel@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Phil Reid , Tim Sander Cc: Jarkko Nikula , Mika Westerberg , Wolfram Sang , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 16:53 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 09:24 +0800, Phil Reid wrote: > I have briefly looked at the current code.  > So, my suggestion is to switch to gpio descriptors in current code and > then rebase your stuff on top. For better transition it might be worth to create gpiod_ support in parallel with existing and convert existing clients case-by-case if needed, while discourage people to use gpio_ API. > I wouldn't encourage people to continue using legacy GPIO API. -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy