Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 0/7] mfd / platform: cros_ec: move cros_ec sysfs attributes to its own drivers. | From | Enric Balletbo i Serra <> | Date | Wed, 9 Jan 2019 10:15:53 +0100 |
| |
Hi Lee,
On 9/1/19 8:25, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 08 Jan 2019, Enric Balletbo Serra wrote: >> Missatge de Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> del dia dv., 21 de des. >> 2018 a les 16:39: >>> >>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> This is another patchset to try to cleanup a bit more the crossed >>>> references for cros-ec driver between the MFD and the platform/chrome >>>> subsystems. >>>> >>>> The purpose of these patches is get rid of the different cros-ec attributes >>>> from mfd/cros_ec_dev to its own sub-driver in platform/chrome. cros_ec_dev >>>> continues instantiating the sub-devices but the sysfs attributes are owned >>>> by the platform driver.E.g. The lightbar driver should own his sysfs >>>> attributes and be instantiated only if the Embedded Controller has a >>>> lightbar. >>>> >>>> The patchset also adds the documentation of the sysfs attributes. >>>> >>>> Most of the patches touches mfd subsystem and platform/chrome so I'd >>>> suggest go all using and inmutable branch. >>> >>> That's fine. >>> >>> What else needs to happen with this set? >> >> I think the patchset is ready to be queued. Note that to apply cleanly >> it depends on [1] which is already merged in your for-next branch. >> What do you prefer, go through your repo or go through the >> chrome-platform repo? Do you want Benson or I create an immutable >> branch? I'm fine with whenever you decide. > > Probably best if this goes through the MFD tree. >
Sounds good to me, thanks Enric
> I have a PR pending upstream at the moment. Once I know what is > happening with that, I'll start taking patches/sets again. > >> [1] >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lee/mfd.git/commit/?h=for-mfd-next&id=18e294ddafaeb80a1e2e10c9bd750a6cb8388d5b >> >>> Any more Acks required? >>> >> >> I think that you, Guenter, Benson and I are fine with it, so not more >> acks needed. > > Thanks for the clarification. >
| |