From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@cam.ac.uk>
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Merge strategy for Industrial I/O (staging?)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:09:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A8294DD.3080205@cam.ac.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090812155101.GA30629@kroah.com>
Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 09:27:05AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> IIO is intended to be a subsystem for sensors such as ADCs, accelerometers,
>> gyros, light sensors and others that have reasonably high update rates and
>> typically are connected via i2c or spi busses.
>>
>> The latest patch set posted to lkml was v4
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/860693
>> Tree at
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/jic23/iio_v4.git;a=summary
>>
>> original discussion of the need for such a subsystem:
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/20/135
>>
>> The last couple of versions of IIO have recieved some useful feedback from
>> a number of people, and feedback from various users has led to a number
>> of recent bug fixes. Unfortunately, full reviews of any given element have
>> not be forthcoming. Several people who have in principle offered to help
>> haven't had the time as yet.
>>
>> In the short term, the lack of review of the core (patch 1 of the above set)
>> leads to a stack of device drivers sitting in the git repository waiting on
>> the core being merged. Currently in the tree there are 3 accelerometers, an
>> adc and a light sensor. I also have an IMU driver (ADIS16350 family) that
>> needs a little more cleaning up and testing with latest IIO core.
>>
>> Increasing numbers of drivers that would fall within the scope of IIO are
>> being submitted to various other subsystems (hwmon for example) and getting
>> bounced out as inappropriate for that subsystem. So, whilst I'd be reasonably
>> happy to maintain the subsystem out of kernel until interest in the devices
>> covered grows, or people have time to assist, I was wondering whether it
>> would be appropriate to submit the subsystem and the associated driver
>> set to staging.
>>
>> Whilst some elements could definitely do with more work (for example the
>> use of rtc's to get periodic timers, is clunky at best), much of the core
>> and the actual device drivers are to my mind pretty clean. So the question
>> is, 'Is lack of reviewers a valid reason to submit to staging in the meantime?'
>
> Yes, I have no objection to taking these patches in staging for now, as
> long as you submit it with a TODO list of things left to be done to get
> it merged to the main portion of the kernel tree.
>
> So, send me the patches!
Will do, thanks.
Jonathan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-12 16:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-12 9:27 RFC: Merge strategy for Industrial I/O (staging?) Jonathan Cameron
2009-08-12 15:51 ` Greg KH
2009-08-12 10:09 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2009-08-12 21:10 ` Robert Schwebel
2009-08-13 5:45 ` Jonathan Cameron
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4A8294DD.3080205@cam.ac.uk \
--to=jic23@cam.ac.uk \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox