On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Laszlo Papp <lp...@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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
