[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK7LNARqsxrFhSEOiZw7TYSyFR8vhaZYcK6KbuG84mP2eM5NJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 14:32:01 +0900
From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Cc: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] pinctrl: UniPhier: add UniPhier pinctrl core support
Hi Paul,
2015-07-09 5:39 GMT+09:00 Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>:
> Hi Masahiro,
>
> On wo, 2015-07-08 at 14:01 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> Actually, most of pinctrl drivers are boolean, but most of them
>> conventionally have MODULE_AUTHOR, THIS_MODULE, etc.
>>
>> I do not think it looks so weird. Thought?
>
> It's a rather common pattern, but I think it's an anti-pattern
> nevertheless. See the discussion that Shobhit Kumar, Paul Gortmaker, and
> I had starting in https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/20/63 .
>
> Please let me know if you're unconvinced by the arguments brought
> forward by both Pauls in that discussion.
>
After I read your references and thought a bit more,
I am now considering to change the bool into tristate.
Pinctrl drivers usually contain quite big pin tables, so
it sounds somewhat reasonable to make it loadable,
given that minimal pin-settings could be done in the boot-loader.
Actually, some of pinctrl drivers in the mainline are already tristate.
I will send v2 later with some other fixes I have noticed.
Is this OK with you?
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
--
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