Re: [v2 0/7] OMAP: GPIO: Use PM runtime framework

Grant Likely
2011-05-19T19:05:25Z

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 02:57:04AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 2011/5/4 Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>:
> > * Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> [110504 00:37]:
> >> 2011/5/3 Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>:
> >>
> >> > Are you OK with a move of the current OMAP GPIO drivers (rather ugly)
> >> > into drivers/gpio first, followed by the cleanup/restructure patches?
> >>
> >> In my case I actually did some cleanup after moving the driver for
> >> U300, but I think this is a question to the GPIO maintainer who
> >> I want to ACK this stuff in the end.
> >>
> >> Grant?
> >>
> >> You can always squash it later ...
> >
> > Personally I would prefer absolutely minimal clean-up of current
> > code before moving to drivers/gpio to cut down the "crazy churn" in
> > arch/arm/. Also then further changes are easier for the GPIO
> > maintainers to review.
> >
> > Of course I understand that this might cause extra load for the
> > GPIO maintainers, so it's up to the GPIO maintainers to set the
> > required standards before accepting the code into drivers/gpio.
>
> After discussion with Grant (in person) here at UDS I am informed
> that he will not be able to review my GPIO consolidation patches in
> time to make adjustments needed for this merge window, so we're
> aiming at early 2.6.41 for these.
>
> He has indicated that he has problems with the chosen config
> mechanism and that we may need to back a few technical
> assumptions out, and we need some more time for that.
>
> For example we may need to refer to configurations by a string
> or indeed export the struct gpio_chip accessor function
> gpio_to_chip() and use custom functions for special stuff,
> as was the first idea.
>
> I will do the refactoring once I have a clear indication from the
> maintainer where he wants this to end up, so my GPIO
> consolidation patches will need to rest for a while.
>
> For TI I guess this currently means you simply cannot work
> on GPIO stuff until you know where to go with it unless you
> allow the OMAP GPIO authors to keep churning in arch/arm/*...
>
> That's unless Grant is OK with us moving stuff into
> drivers/gpio that does *not* use gpiolib and utilize singletons to
> get at the gpio_chip addresses (i.e. current form) and keep it
> churning like that until it can be refactored.

I'm okay with non-gpiolib drivers being moved in before they are
cleaned up.

g.