From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932360AbaICLB1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2014 07:01:27 -0400 Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk ([106.187.55.193]:47888 "EHLO mezzanine.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932133AbaICLB0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2014 07:01:26 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 12:01:16 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov Cc: Dirk Behme , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood , Gokulkrishnan Nagarajan , Grant Likely , Linus Walleij Message-ID: <20140903110116.GI29327@sirena.org.uk> References: <1409336356-27682-1-git-send-email-dmitry_eremin@mentor.com> <20140829190129.GZ29327@sirena.org.uk> <5404246E.4090908@de.bosch.com> <20140901101512.GK29327@sirena.org.uk> <54045FA6.70602@mentor.com> <20140901120602.GT29327@sirena.org.uk> <5404680F.3040308@mentor.com> <20140901124947.GU29327@sirena.org.uk> <5406D98D.7000402@mentor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cvGDtX8LmIpY177y" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5406D98D.7000402@mentor.com> X-Cookie: Simulated picture. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 94.175.94.161 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: GPIO #0 is a valid GPIO X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mezzanine.sirena.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --cvGDtX8LmIpY177y Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 01:04:13PM +0400, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote: > OK, if the question is about other users, should we review all current users > that do not specify that gpio, change them to pass -1 and then allow valid > GPIO#0 as a valid ena_gpio? What do you think about a patch > that will warn for one or two releases that ena_gpio == 0 will change > meaning in a forthcoming feature? The warning is sensible (I'm sure we used to have one though I can't see it in the git logs now) but I'm not sure a two release cycle is enough for everyone to have upgraded and paid attention. --cvGDtX8LmIpY177y Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIbBAEBAgAGBQJUBvT5AAoJELSic+t+oim9dJ8P+J1XAmxsGB5T9WZUepQsALVG GhGnXqhCDRaFpw4slaN2RwMAKGHB3KA/38yBRVISxhWYRGYU1rSv5awFy/0G6BJk BatZLdnfMYEY51C7J/yWFga4F077ZnzIIUwtkzF7wzKViBuiFcy3TTwVq100PCEF LvAJV2SusBm44oXX2k7JQgQQHIHsSuMUQcusrPkN/Cq56mkZRJ9zOuWn7xFOYHG+ maT9OaMH9N+30rNGkApCpfLDxkroRBnh9d+fY58l3PAl+sOaoiCuhpJjOPPxFC2I V1BcQoFpexTxcKk/QHdZniijVOwKU+/eXw3xIWozWKCLFbYGH+G3fqfuaXTgS2Pb navyGafxAgN86ICMtCzpqN4k5EoMmWXn2aggKe8tLp998/jsK9UG8mDPYc1ywgwA aWKozZLEMzfiAM+x8U6NxxpSrpUg14z3OUa6vGV8GcVZhzgjMabKohS3Z+/ouCHW ZiRiJHY9MnKhMw5khXrvWL5T+tq7aAVYGNionly6CED5BPFvpU99IMLsPsHknWrT O1EJFlaPaTvqubIM8+qUyylrEG05fYrxiFHVANDta1AX7R8/qFLaSvsq/i/XIZ+2 RV04OHPnBNLcwD2360Idn70x9RG8lAXRGBVBfBzrSnNGtwWXR3B0XowH0VlamU7e Y5PNtwuJW4sRFuPfcH0= =H3oS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --cvGDtX8LmIpY177y--