Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:48:01 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] gpio: MAX6650/6651 support | From | Linus Walleij <> |
| |
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp@kde.org> wrote:
> I was giving a second thought to this. Would it be acceptable to add > the gpio driver now, and once the need arises, add the pinctrl thin > layer on top of it?
I will not accept the platform data setting the pull-ups.
> My concern is that I would not use anything else > than the gpio functionality of these pins. It would be a needless > additional work (i.e. investment) for my project and employer.
But you are still expecting me as a subsystem maintainer to take responsibility of this driver for as long as I have this role?
Rewriting code is a natural part of the community process, noone claimed it would be easy ;-)
> Perhaps, the layer on top of that can be added later without any > drawback if anyone ever finds the need to have more functionality > supported by these pins?
Your driver already supports setting the pulls using a *custom* platform data field. This is not OK, and shall be implemented using the pin control subsystem. I will not merge drivers using custom platform data fields like this.
The reason that the pin control subsystem even existed was that at the time my drivers were NACKed because I tried to shoehorn pin control into the GPIO subsystem, and as a result now we have an apropriate subsystem for it, so please use it.
Yours, Linus Walleij
| |