From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754696Ab3KYJD7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Nov 2013 04:03:59 -0500 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:37276 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753940Ab3KYJDv (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Nov 2013 04:03:51 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,766,1378882800"; d="scan'208";a="441071336" Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:02:19 +0200 From: Heikki Krogerus To: Alex Courbot Cc: Alexandre Courbot , Mika Westerberg , ACPI Devel Maling List , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linus Walleij , Chris Ball , Johannes Berg , Rhyland Klein , Adrian Hunter , Mathias Nyman , Rob Landley , Stephen Warren , Thierry Reding , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] net: rfkill: gpio: remove gpio conversion support Message-ID: <20131125090218.GC21001@xps8300> References: <1385122474-14926-1-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <1385122474-14926-4-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <20131125084127.GB21001@xps8300> <52930EAA.7030208@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52930EAA.7030208@nvidia.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 05:47:38PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote: > On 11/25/2013 05:41 PM, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > >Adding the lookup table in first patch and then changing the driver in > >the second creates a point to the history where this driver stops > >working on this platform, which is something I'm not willing to do. > > Does it? If you just add a lookup table and keep using the > integer-based GPIO interface, then your lookup table will not be > used by anyone and will basically be a no-op. Then you can switch to > the GPIO descriptor interface and take advantage of the lookup > table. Unless I missed something there should not be any point that > breaks in the git history. > > (to be clear: the first patch should *only* contain the lookup > table, and the second be a merge of the current patches 1 and 3 of > this series.) OK, I agree. If I don't remove the old gpio numbers in in the first patch, there is no problem. We can do this with the two patches. Thanks, -- heikki