From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Bolle Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] pinctrl: Add Pistachio SoC pin control driver Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 20:20:15 +0200 Message-ID: <1427826015.2408.63.camel@x220> References: <1427757416-14491-1-git-send-email-abrestic@chromium.org> <1427757416-14491-4-git-send-email-abrestic@chromium.org> <1427789415.2408.45.camel@x220> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Bresticker Cc: Linus Walleij , Alexandre Courbot , Ralf Baechle , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , Linux-MIPS , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Ezequiel Garcia , James Hartley , James Hogan , Damien Horsley , Govindraj Raja , Kevin Cernekee List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org Hi Andrew, On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 09:56 -0700, Andrew Bresticker wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Paul Bolle wrote: > > The patch adds a mismatch between the Kconfig symbol (a bool) and the > > code (which suggests that a modular build is also possible). > > Nearly all of the pinctrl drivers (with the exception of qcom and > intel) are like this. Could be, I didn't check. Perhaps copy and pasting is to blame. (Copy and pasting appears to me a sensible way to start writing a new driver). > They use a bool Kconfig symbol but they are > written so that they could be built as a module in the future. Did I miss a comment or a remark in the commit explanation that explains this? Anyhow, if that modular future is not expected to be the near future, can you perhaps carry these lines in a branch called, say pinctrl-modular? Thanks, Paul Bolle