From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753295Ab3KSQym (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:54:42 -0500
Received: from mail-pb0-f47.google.com ([209.85.160.47]:53387 "EHLO
	mail-pb0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751421Ab3KSQyk (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:54:40 -0500
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:54:38 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Laszlo Papp <lpapp@kde.org>
Cc: Marcus Folkesson <marcus.folkesson@gmail.com>, hjk@hansjkoch.de,
        lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwmon: (max6650) Add support for gpiodef
Message-ID: <20131119165438.GD30481@roeck-us.net>
References: <1384440661-3769-1-git-send-email-lpapp@kde.org>
 <20131114172427.GA11062@roeck-us.net>
 <CAOMwXhNdo8aRGH9AL+JxYnDg2zAN4+-TeHJU=Kc1kDKmyYuYmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131114181845.GA13727@roeck-us.net>
 <CAOMwXhNaZ=oqp5mjnCrOSkdax5U6ffsZf_p4mzd3W2jF+=xWqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131114190044.GE13727@roeck-us.net>
 <CAOMwXhPvPnprrJx-1dfJnO+E12sxAE9M_sYg7tyzp4dsDa8vyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ4dqQu0=HP=Ut+VnNjkSL2cE8QN+JRa-Xd8X01ij+ijKUKxwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOMwXhM1Xi=UqpmKNDsOnQLXKo1o+65TZi6AkBk4Ds9wuXSaWQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOMwXhM1Xi=UqpmKNDsOnQLXKo1o+65TZi6AkBk4Ds9wuXSaWQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 04:42:49PM +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Marcus Folkesson
> <marcus.folkesson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This is just one use case of those, you could also use it for
> >> non-generic gpio functionality, like alarm, "full-on", internal clock,
> >> external clock, etc. I believe it is always a bit tricky with MFD. I
> >> personally prefer to put it into the chip driver because this is not
> >> clearly a generic gpio interface here, and I need to drive it
> >> dynamically.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > I think the solution with expose the "GPIOs" in sysfs is the right way to
> > go.
> > The chip-function is of a dynamic nature and should therefor not be set in
> > platform data / devicetree.
> >
> > As mentioned before, GPIOs should use the gpio subsystem whenever possible,
> > but the the gpio-functionality is just a subset of
> > functions these pins may be set to.
> >
> > Also, the I think the *real* reason why the entries is called "gpio" is that
> > it is so the registers are are mentioned in the datasheet.
> > Everyone that is working with the device will know what it is all about.
> > I see it more as an register expose than a gpio interface...
> >
> > I agree that the entries does not really fit here. But they does not fit
> > better elsewhere either.
> > And I don't think they fit worse than the alarm-entries that is already in
> > mainline.
> >
> > Anyway, I think the documentation file should mention what function each
> > valid value represent.
> 
> Yes, makes sense to make the documentation more comprehensive. Thanks.
> 
> Any other issues from anyone before submitting a polished version?
> 
You'll have to get feedback from Jean. I won't accept the patch.

Guenter