Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] pinctrl / gpio: Introduce .set_config() callback for GPIO chips

[Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 01:53:53PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Mika Westerberg
> <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 06:11:07PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 03:34:34PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> >> > Currently we already have two pin configuration related callbacks
> >> > available for GPIO chips .set_single_ended() and .set_debounce(). In
> >> > future we expect to have even more, which does not scale well if we need
> >> > to add yet another callback to the GPIO chip structure for each possible
> >> > configuration parameter.
> >> >
> >> > Better solution is to reuse what we already have available in the
> >> > generic pinconf.
> >> >
> >> > To support this, we introduce a new .set_config() callback for GPIO
> >> > chips. The callback takes a single packed pin configuration value as
> >> > parameter. This can then be extended easily beyond what is currently
> >> > supported by just adding new types to the generic pinconf enum.
> >> >
> >> > If the GPIO driver is backed up by a pinctrl driver the GPIO driver can
> >> > just assign gpiochip_generic_config() (introduced in this patch) to
> >> > .set_config and that will take care configuration requests are directed
> >> > to the pinctrl driver.
> >> >
> >> > We then convert the existing drivers over .set_config() and finally
> >> > remove the .set_single_ended() and .set_debounce() callbacks.
> >> >
> >> > Suggested-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> >> For greybus and USB serial:
> 
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >> Note however that this patch fails to apply to linux-next (conflicts in
> >> pinctrl as well as staging).
> >
> > Indeed, it does. I did the series on top of v4.10-rc5 but looks like
> > there are some changes in linux-next that I missed.
> >
> > I'll rebase the series on top of linux-next and resend.
> 
> If the conflicts are just with the GPIO tree then the  "devel" branch
> in the GPIO tree is what you should base it on.

OK.

> If there are conflicts with other trees including pinctrl it should
> probably be based on v4.10-rcN and end up in my face, in this case
> maybe I should just make an immutable branch in the GPIO tree and
> pull to both itself and pincontrol and resolve the conflicts if they are
> clashing.

The only conflict I noticed when rebased the series on top of today's
linux-next was due to 7f2e9de736e7 ("staging: greybus: fix checkpatch
unsigned warnings").