linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] x86/platform: (TS-5500) add GPIO support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:33:56 -0800
From:	Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@...csson.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC:	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Jerome Oufella <jerome.oufella@...oirfairelinux.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"lm-sensors@...sensors.org" <lm-sensors@...sensors.org>,
	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] x86/platform: (TS-5500) add GPIO support

On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 16:30 -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_TS5500_GPIO)		+= ts5500_gpio.o
> 
> Wants to be gpi-ts5500 and in the drivers/gpio directory.
> 

I would agree, though there seem to be some disagreements about where
such platform specific drivers should be located. From an earlier
exchange I had with Vivien about this matter:

> > > would be the appropriate location for a driver like this. As
> > > mentioned before, my strong preference is drivers/hwmon, but I
> > > would like to hear from others.
> > 
> > We should either split every driver into corresponding
> > subdirectories, or put everything in a common platform directory.
> > My first RFC patches set has every driver separated. As they are
> > really specific to the platform, people seem to agree with grouping
> > them, mainly because they won't be shared. I changed that in the
> > following patches sets, and X86 maintainers seemed to be ok with
> > that.
> > 
> > I'm ok with both solutions, but we should all agree on one.
> > Maybe we should have other maintainers view on this?
> > 
> That is what I had asked for. I thought the whole point of per-module 
> directories was to have all drivers there. If that is no longer true,
> fine with me; who am I to argue about something like that.
> I'd just like to know.
> 

It looks like things are going back and forth a bit. If I were Vivien, I
would be a bit frustrated by now and be close to giving up (Vivien, I
really commend you for your patience).

Is there a written guideline or policy people can look and point to
if/when something like this comes up ? Otherwise we may have the
LED/GPIO/xxx maintainers point one way, the X86 maintainers point the
other way, and thus may have reached a complete deadlock.

Guenter


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/