From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from saturn.retrosnub.co.uk ([178.18.118.26]:34026 "EHLO saturn.retrosnub.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751545Ab3ASMvx (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jan 2013 07:51:53 -0500 Message-ID: <50FA96E0.2040604@kernel.org> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:51:44 +0000 From: Jonathan Cameron MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Getz, Robin" CC: Lars-Peter Clausen , Alessandro Rubini , "greg@kroah.com" , "christophe.leroy@c-s.fr" , "jic23@cam.ac.uk" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-iio@vger.kernel.org" , "patrick.vasseur@c-s.fr" Subject: Re: [PATCH] IIO ADC support for AD7923 References: <50F199F7.7020600@metafoo.de> <20130117171100.GA24398@mail.gnudd.com> <50F83695.506@metafoo.de> <201301181802.14382.robin.getz@analog.com> In-Reply-To: <201301181802.14382.robin.getz@analog.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org On 01/18/2013 11:02 PM, Getz, Robin wrote: > On Thu 17 Jan 2013 12:36, Lars-Peter Clausen pondered: >> On 01/17/2013 06:11 PM, Alessandro Rubini wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>> But yes, you are right. I'm working on another I/O subsystem. We are >>> gong to release zio-1.0 in a few days, because the thing is mature >>> and used in production. > > Neither means it's a good idea for upstream :) > >> Still it's a very bad idea to have two subsystem which have a huge overlap >> in both functionality and targeted devices. It will gives us all lots of >> headaches later on. As IIO continues to evolve it will get support for some >> of the features that only ZIO supports at the moment and as ZIO grows it >> will get support for features currently only supported by IIO. So in the >> end we have two frameworks for the very same purpose. > > I want to strongly agree with Lars-Peter. Lets work together on one thing - > which tries to solve all the our system level issues. As an end user - I > don't want to re-write userspace for multiple interfaces to the same > underlying ADC/DACs. > > I don't know how Greg feels about another subsystem in the kernel which > duplicates existing functionality/targetted devices - but it doesn't sound > like a good idea to me. > >>> I hope to meet you in person at fosdem and be able to talk over a beer >>> or two. >> >> Looking forward to meeting you :) > > Hopefully you can come to some logical conclusions over a friendly beverage. > Even if you can't decide on how to merge things (plan for adding missing > features from one to the other), maybe it's just deciding on how to get as > much reuse as possible (duplication of device register and bit definitions?) > I second these comments from Lars and Robin (or third I suppose ;). Lets get the best possible result. The source of an idea or code really doesn't matter in the long run, what matters is that we get a solution that works well for all users. Enjoy those beverages (and fosdem of course!) Jonathan