From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755951Ab3KVRrg (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:47:36 -0500 Received: from mail-pb0-f54.google.com ([209.85.160.54]:33064 "EHLO mail-pb0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754477Ab3KVRrd (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:47:33 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20131122160457.GA3951@roeck-us.net> References: <20131119165438.GD30481@roeck-us.net> <20131119180007.GB16693@roeck-us.net> <20131121173458.GC10783@roeck-us.net> <528F6BB8.8040504@roeck-us.net> <20131122160457.GA3951@roeck-us.net> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:47:33 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8Pm-FNi1Fv7_5krd6Pu3bbWYs_4 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon: (max6650) Add support for gpiodef From: Laszlo Papp To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Marcus Folkesson , hjk@hansjkoch.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 02:50:50PM +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> > On 11/22/2013 01:23 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote: >> >> >> >> Just to clarify: you want to have ./gpio/gpio-max6650.c? >> >> >> > No, I never said that. I wanted you to register the gpio pins >> > with the gpio subsystem. I didn't ask you to write a separate >> > driver for it. >> > >> > Sure, strictly speaking one could write a top level mfd driver >> > and separate gpio and hwmon drivers, but at least in my opinion >> > that would be overkill. I also never suggested this; you brought >> > the term mfd into the discussion. >> >> Why is it an overkill to write a separate gpio driver for this, and >> potentially also for the gpio status register of this particular MAXIM >> chip? >> >> Other gpio drivers in the gpio folder are also short. This would not >> become long either. >> > No one prevents you from writing a separate gpio driver. I will certainly > not prevent you from doing it. Just don't claim that I requested it. > Same is true for an mfd driver; I won't prevent you from writing one. > But don't claim that I told you to do it. I am not sure if you are trying to claim that with this statement a separate gpio driver would be acceptable, but it would require a bit more work, or whether that you would reject such a driver added.