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

Grant Likely
2011-05-19T19:08:44Z

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:42:39AM +0200, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > 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.
>
> The churn will happen one way or another. the only question is whether
> it happens in drivers/gpio or arch/arm/*.
>
> Grant, what's your feeling here. How much ugliness are you willing to
> tolerate in a bulk move to drivers/gpio. At least for OMAP, I am
> personally be working on the cleanup/move so I can work either way,
> although I know Tony has an obvious preference for moving it to
> drivers/gpio. :)
>
> The OMAP driver is already using gpiolib. The main ugliness in the OMAP
> driver is the awful ifdeffery used to handle the differences across the
> various SoCs in the OMAP family. I've already got most of that cleaned
> up[1].

Go ahead and move stuff. I may as well have the junk in my tree.

I request however to have at least some semblance of organization.
I'd like each driver filename to be named something like gpio_*.c, and
put things into the Makefile/Kconfig in alphabetical order as much as
possible.

Also, for an awful lot of these SoC gpio controllers there is almost
zero value in having a user visible Kconfig entry for it because they
are so tiny. I'd rather see on-chip gpio controllers configured in
automatically without any user selectable options.

g.