From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [v2 0/7] OMAP: GPIO: Use PM runtime framework Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 09:19:05 +0300 Message-ID: <20110504061905.GD27860@atomide.com> References: <1303139217-10285-1-git-send-email-charu@ti.com> <20110419062633.GA15620@atomide.com> <87r58w4gq3.fsf@ti.com> <20110421054221.GF5918@atomide.com> <20110426072941.GA3755@atomide.com> <87y62ng3f8.fsf@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.66]:41071 "EHLO mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752356Ab1EDGTI (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 May 2011 02:19:08 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: Kevin Hilman , Grant Likely , paul@pwsan.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, "Varadarajan, Charulatha" * Linus Walleij [110504 00:37]: > 2011/5/3 Kevin Hilman : > > > 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. Regards, Tony