Re: [PATCH v1 0/7] gpiolib: kill gpio_request_one()

[Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 04:55:16PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 09:35:43AM -0400, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 15:09:14 +0200, Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> said:
> > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 11:40:59PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 8:51 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > >> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > This is the finilazation of the work announced in the commit 61e1fd2abca4
> > >> > ("gpiolib: legacy: Make sure we kill gpio_request_one() first"). With this
> > >> > small series we kill gpio_request_one() and leave only two legacy calls
> > >> > devm_gpio_request_one() and gpio_request(), where the managed one has only
> > >> > a few users and high chances to be killed soon as well.
> > >> >
> > >> > The series is supposed to go via GPIO tree (due to nature of the last patch)
> > >> > with possible immutable branch for others. Please, ack.
> > >>
> > >> The kernel is clearly a better place after these patches than before it, so:
> > >> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linusw@kernel.org>
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Bart, anything needs to be done for this series to go in?
> > 
> > We don't have Acks from MIPS maintainers. :(
> 
> Hmm... Usually Thomas is quick. Thomas, can you give your Ack if you agree with
> the changes, please?

sorry, I was on vacation.

I'm fine with the changes, but I'm not, if they still apply cleanly...

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]