From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753871AbZHLPxM (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:53:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751924AbZHLPxL (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:53:11 -0400 Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:58333 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751862AbZHLPxK (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:53:10 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:51:01 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Jonathan Cameron Cc: LKML Subject: Re: RFC: Merge strategy for Industrial I/O (staging?) Message-ID: <20090812155101.GA30629@kroah.com> References: <4A828AE9.9090807@cam.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A828AE9.9090807@cam.ac.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 09:27:05AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > Dear All, > > IIO is intended to be a subsystem for sensors such as ADCs, accelerometers, > gyros, light sensors and others that have reasonably high update rates and > typically are connected via i2c or spi busses. > > The latest patch set posted to lkml was v4 > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/860693 > Tree at > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/jic23/iio_v4.git;a=summary > > original discussion of the need for such a subsystem: > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/20/135 > > The last couple of versions of IIO have recieved some useful feedback from > a number of people, and feedback from various users has led to a number > of recent bug fixes. Unfortunately, full reviews of any given element have > not be forthcoming. Several people who have in principle offered to help > haven't had the time as yet. > > In the short term, the lack of review of the core (patch 1 of the above set) > leads to a stack of device drivers sitting in the git repository waiting on > the core being merged. Currently in the tree there are 3 acceleromters, an > adc and a light sensor. I also have an IMU driver (ADIS16350 family) that > needs a little more cleaning up and testing with latest IIO core. > > Increasing numbers of drivers that would fall within the scope of IIO are > being submitted to various other subsystems (hwmon for example) and getting > bounced out as inappropriate for that subsystem. So, whilst I'd be reasonably > happy to maintain the subsystem out of kernel until interest in the devices > covered grows, or people have time to assist, I was wondering whether it > would be appropriate to submit the subsystem and the associated driver > set to staging. > > Whilst some elements could definitely do with more work (for example the > use of rtc's to get periodic timers, is clunky at best), much of the core > and the actual device drivers are to my mind pretty clean. So the question > is, 'Is lack of reviewers a valid reason to submit to staging in the meantime?' Yes, I have no objection to taking these patches in staging for now, as long as you submit it with a TODO list of things left to be done to get it merged to the main portion of the kernel tree. So, send me the patches! thanks, greg k-h