[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdbDAWq42pkwTfi98invy0ov=XD8WzfX0dwnjeRXVpQ8Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 15:18:09 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Sascha Silbe <x-linux@...ra-silbe.de>,
Johan Hovold <jhovold@...il.com>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: ftdi_sio: add GPIO support
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Grant Likely
<grant.likely@...retlab.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> However is the MFD cell approach acceptable?
>>
>> Yes it is.
>
> Going back to this old conversation... Actually, I disagree. There is
> absolutely no need to go the MFD approach for this driver. That just
> adds layers of abstraction for no purpose. GPIOLIB is an interface,
> and it is completely fine for a driver to hook up to the GPIOLIB
> interface at the same time as exposing a serial port. MFD doesn't buy
> the driver anything useful here.
What is buys is centralizing code into the proper drivers/gpio
folder of the kernel. So more of a maintenance point than a
mechanics/performance point.
We do have GPIO drivers scattered all over the kernel so one
more or less wouldn't matter so much...
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists