linux-kernel - Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon: (max6650) Add support for gpiodef

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:	Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:08:24 +0000
From:	Laszlo Papp <lpapp@....org>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:	Marcus Folkesson <marcus.folkesson@...il.com>, hjk@...sjkoch.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lm-sensors@...sensors.org
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon: (max6650) Add support for gpiodef

On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 05:47:33PM +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 02:50:50PM +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>> >> > On 11/22/2013 01:23 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Just to clarify: you want to have ./gpio/gpio-max6650.c?
>> >> >>
>> >> > No, I never said that. I wanted you to register the gpio pins
>> >> > with the gpio subsystem. I didn't ask you to write a separate
>> >> > driver for it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Sure, strictly speaking one could write a top level mfd driver
>> >> > and separate gpio and hwmon drivers, but at least in my opinion
>> >> > that would be overkill. I also never suggested this; you brought
>> >> > the term mfd into the discussion.
>> >>
>> >> Why is it an overkill to write a separate gpio driver for this, and
>> >> potentially also for the gpio status register of this particular MAXIM
>> >> chip?
>> >>
>> >> Other gpio drivers in the gpio folder are also short. This would not
>> >> become long either.
>> >>
>> > No one prevents you from writing a separate gpio driver. I will certainly
>> > not prevent you from doing it. Just don't claim that I requested it.
>> > Same is true for an mfd driver; I won't prevent you from writing one.
>> > But don't claim that I told you to do it.
>>
>> I am not sure if you are trying to claim that with this statement a
>> separate gpio driver would be acceptable, but it would require a bit
>> more work, or whether that you would reject such a driver added.
>>
> Please explain, for my education, what makes you believe that I would
> object to or reject to anyone submitting such a driver.

After the current objection, I am not sure anymore. I thought the last
change would have been just as acceptable. ;-)

So, in short, I would not like to waste more time with unacceptable
approaches for the maintainer. Anyway, if you feel happy about
accepting such an approach once stabilized, I think I will go for
that.
--
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/