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:	Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:23:07 -0500
From:	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@...csson.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	"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>,
	Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] x86/platform: (TS-5500) add GPIO support

Le Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:37:42 +0000,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> a écrit :

> On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 11:33:56AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 16:30 -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> > > > 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.
> 
> > 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).
> 
> OTOH I just looked back and saw that some of the review comments I
> just made were also made against the first version of this driver I
> noticed (v2) but appear to have been ignored, the request tracking
> stands out.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I'm not sure I'm seeing much conflict here TBH, looking at the above
> and the history I have to hand I'd say it's reading like the x86
> maintainers aren't fussed either way and the people doing kernel wide
> work on things like this prefer getting stuff integrated into the
> frameworks.

Thanks for the comments. I'll then move the GPIO driver back to
drivers/gpio and fix what Mark pointed out.

I Cc Richard Purdie, to have his maintainer view on the platform LED
declaration. Is it ok in the ts5500_led.c platform file, or should it
better be moved into drivers/leds/leds-ts5500.c, or maybe directly
declared in the main ts5500.c platform code?

Thanks,
Vivien.

-- 
Vivien Didelot
Savoir-faire Linux Inc.
Tel: (514) 276-5468 #149
--
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/