Re: New IIO/counter driver

Re: New IIO/counter driver

[Patrick Havelange]

Hello,

I'm in the process of adding a new IIO/counter driver, however I also
saw that there was a work in progress to have a separate counter
subsystem ( https://marc.info/?l=linux-iio&m=153974167727206 ). But it
seems there is no recent progress on it.
What is the state of those patches ? Is it still interesting to
develop the driver as an IIO/counter , or should I use already that
new subsystem ?

Best Regards,

Patrick Havelange.

Re: New IIO/counter driver

[William Breathitt Gray]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 02:45:37PM +0100, Patrick Havelange wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm in the process of adding a new IIO/counter driver, however I also saw
> that there was a work in progress to have a separate counter subsystem (
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-iio&m=153974167727206 ). But it seems there is
> no recent progress on it.
> What is the state of those patches ? Is it still interesting to develop the
> driver as an IIO/counter , or should I use already that new subsystem ?
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Patrick Havelange.

Hello,

I am still open to merging this patchset and maintaining the Counter
subsystem. However, I took the lack of response for my latest
submission to indicate a loss of interest in this patchset's approach.
If there are still people who want this, I can rebase and resend this
patchset for submission; the past few versions have primarily been code
clarity and documentation changes so I believe the core design itself is
somewhat stable now.

Just let me know how best to proceed and I shall be happy to oblige --
whether to continue maintaining this patchset or to drop this design in
favor of improving the existing IIO Counter code in the kernel.

I'll CC those from the patchset submission to keep them in the loop.

Sincerely,

William Breathitt Gray

Re: New IIO/counter driver

[William Breathitt Gray]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 02:45:37PM +0100, Patrick Havelange wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm in the process of adding a new IIO/counter driver, however I also saw
> that there was a work in progress to have a separate counter subsystem (
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-iio&m=153974167727206 ). But it seems there is
> no recent progress on it.
> What is the state of those patches ? Is it still interesting to develop the
> driver as an IIO/counter , or should I use already that new subsystem ?
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Patrick Havelange.

Hello,

I am still open to merging this patchset and maintaining the Counter
subsystem. However, I took the lack of response for my latest
submission to indicate a loss of interest in this patchset's approach.
If there are still people who want this, I can rebase and resend this
patchset for submission; the past few versions have primarily been code
clarity and documentation changes so I believe the core design itself is
somewhat stable now.

Just let me know how best to proceed and I shall be happy to oblige --
whether to continue maintaining this patchset or to drop this design in
favor of improving the existing IIO Counter code in the kernel.

I'll CC those from the patchset submission to keep them in the loop.

Sincerely,

William Breathitt Gray

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: New IIO/counter driver

[Benjamin Gaignard]

Le mar. 8 janv. 2019 à 01:46, William Breathitt Gray
<vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 02:45:37PM +0100, Patrick Havelange wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm in the process of adding a new IIO/counter driver, however I also saw
> > that there was a work in progress to have a separate counter subsystem (
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-iio&m=153974167727206 ). But it seems there is
> > no recent progress on it.
> > What is the state of those patches ? Is it still interesting to develop the
> > driver as an IIO/counter , or should I use already that new subsystem ?
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Patrick Havelange.
>
> Hello,
>
> I am still open to merging this patchset and maintaining the Counter
> subsystem. However, I took the lack of response for my latest
> submission to indicate a loss of interest in this patchset's approach.
> If there are still people who want this, I can rebase and resend this
> patchset for submission; the past few versions have primarily been code
> clarity and documentation changes so I believe the core design itself is
> somewhat stable now.
>
> Just let me know how best to proceed and I shall be happy to oblige --
> whether to continue maintaining this patchset or to drop this design in
> favor of improving the existing IIO Counter code in the kernel.
>
> I'll CC those from the patchset submission to keep them in the loop.

I confirm that I still interested to get those patches merged.

Regards,
Benjamin
>
> Sincerely,
>
> William Breathitt Gray
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel



-- 
Benjamin Gaignard

Graphic Study Group

Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Re: New IIO/counter driver

[Benjamin Gaignard]

Le mar. 8 janv. 2019 à 01:46, William Breathitt Gray
<vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 02:45:37PM +0100, Patrick Havelange wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm in the process of adding a new IIO/counter driver, however I also saw
> > that there was a work in progress to have a separate counter subsystem (
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-iio&m=153974167727206 ). But it seems there is
> > no recent progress on it.
> > What is the state of those patches ? Is it still interesting to develop the
> > driver as an IIO/counter , or should I use already that new subsystem ?
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Patrick Havelange.
>
> Hello,
>
> I am still open to merging this patchset and maintaining the Counter
> subsystem. However, I took the lack of response for my latest
> submission to indicate a loss of interest in this patchset's approach.
> If there are still people who want this, I can rebase and resend this
> patchset for submission; the past few versions have primarily been code
> clarity and documentation changes so I believe the core design itself is
> somewhat stable now.
>
> Just let me know how best to proceed and I shall be happy to oblige --
> whether to continue maintaining this patchset or to drop this design in
> favor of improving the existing IIO Counter code in the kernel.
>
> I'll CC those from the patchset submission to keep them in the loop.

I confirm that I still interested to get those patches merged.

Regards,
Benjamin
>
> Sincerely,
>
> William Breathitt Gray
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel



-- 
Benjamin Gaignard

Graphic Study Group

Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: New IIO/counter driver

[Fabrice Gasnier]

On 1/8/19 11:57 AM, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
> Le mar. 8 janv. 2019 à 01:46, William Breathitt Gray
> <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 02:45:37PM +0100, Patrick Havelange wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I'm in the process of adding a new IIO/counter driver, however I also saw
>>> that there was a work in progress to have a separate counter subsystem (
>>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-iio&m=153974167727206 ). But it seems there is
>>> no recent progress on it.
>>> What is the state of those patches ? Is it still interesting to develop the
>>> driver as an IIO/counter , or should I use already that new subsystem ?
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Patrick Havelange.
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am still open to merging this patchset and maintaining the Counter
>> subsystem. However, I took the lack of response for my latest
>> submission to indicate a loss of interest in this patchset's approach.
>> If there are still people who want this, I can rebase and resend this
>> patchset for submission; the past few versions have primarily been code
>> clarity and documentation changes so I believe the core design itself is
>> somewhat stable now.
>>
>> Just let me know how best to proceed and I shall be happy to oblige --
>> whether to continue maintaining this patchset or to drop this design in
>> favor of improving the existing IIO Counter code in the kernel.
>>
>> I'll CC those from the patchset submission to keep them in the loop.
> 
> I confirm that I still interested to get those patches merged.
> 
> Regards,
> Benjamin
Hi,

Same for me,

Regards,
Fabrice
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> William Breathitt Gray
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> 
> 
> 

Re: New IIO/counter driver

[Fabrice Gasnier]

On 1/8/19 11:57 AM, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
> Le mar. 8 janv. 2019 à 01:46, William Breathitt Gray
> <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 02:45:37PM +0100, Patrick Havelange wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I'm in the process of adding a new IIO/counter driver, however I also saw
>>> that there was a work in progress to have a separate counter subsystem (
>>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-iio&m=153974167727206 ). But it seems there is
>>> no recent progress on it.
>>> What is the state of those patches ? Is it still interesting to develop the
>>> driver as an IIO/counter , or should I use already that new subsystem ?
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Patrick Havelange.
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am still open to merging this patchset and maintaining the Counter
>> subsystem. However, I took the lack of response for my latest
>> submission to indicate a loss of interest in this patchset's approach.
>> If there are still people who want this, I can rebase and resend this
>> patchset for submission; the past few versions have primarily been code
>> clarity and documentation changes so I believe the core design itself is
>> somewhat stable now.
>>
>> Just let me know how best to proceed and I shall be happy to oblige --
>> whether to continue maintaining this patchset or to drop this design in
>> favor of improving the existing IIO Counter code in the kernel.
>>
>> I'll CC those from the patchset submission to keep them in the loop.
> 
> I confirm that I still interested to get those patches merged.
> 
> Regards,
> Benjamin
Hi,

Same for me,

Regards,
Fabrice
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> William Breathitt Gray
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: New IIO/counter driver

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 12:01:57 +0100
Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@st.com> wrote:

> On 1/8/19 11:57 AM, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
> > Le mar. 8 janv. 2019 à 01:46, William Breathitt Gray
> > <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> a écrit :  
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 02:45:37PM +0100, Patrick Havelange wrote:  
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> I'm in the process of adding a new IIO/counter driver, however I also saw
> >>> that there was a work in progress to have a separate counter subsystem (
> >>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-iio&m=153974167727206 ). But it seems there is
> >>> no recent progress on it.
> >>> What is the state of those patches ? Is it still interesting to develop the
> >>> driver as an IIO/counter , or should I use already that new subsystem ?
> >>>
> >>> Best Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Patrick Havelange.  
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I am still open to merging this patchset and maintaining the Counter
> >> subsystem. However, I took the lack of response for my latest
> >> submission to indicate a loss of interest in this patchset's approach.
> >> If there are still people who want this, I can rebase and resend this
> >> patchset for submission; the past few versions have primarily been code
> >> clarity and documentation changes so I believe the core design itself is
> >> somewhat stable now.
> >>
> >> Just let me know how best to proceed and I shall be happy to oblige --
> >> whether to continue maintaining this patchset or to drop this design in
> >> favor of improving the existing IIO Counter code in the kernel.
> >>
> >> I'll CC those from the patchset submission to keep them in the loop.  
> > 
> > I confirm that I still interested to get those patches merged.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Benjamin  
> Hi,
> 
> Same for me,
In a more abstract fashion (I don't have any hardware of this type!)
I'm still keen for the counter subsystem to go in.  Hopefully, if
Greg or anyone else wants to take a detailed look they will have time
this cycle to do so.

I was pretty happy with the last version I read through.  There will
always be things to improved, but as long a we are happy with
the userspace inteface, the little things can happen later.

Jonathan

> 
> Regards,
> Fabrice
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> William Breathitt Gray
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> >> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel  
> > 
> > 
> >   

Re: New IIO/counter driver

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 12:01:57 +0100
Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@st.com> wrote:

> On 1/8/19 11:57 AM, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
> > Le mar. 8 janv. 2019 à 01:46, William Breathitt Gray
> > <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> a écrit :  
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 02:45:37PM +0100, Patrick Havelange wrote:  
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> I'm in the process of adding a new IIO/counter driver, however I also saw
> >>> that there was a work in progress to have a separate counter subsystem (
> >>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-iio&m=153974167727206 ). But it seems there is
> >>> no recent progress on it.
> >>> What is the state of those patches ? Is it still interesting to develop the
> >>> driver as an IIO/counter , or should I use already that new subsystem ?
> >>>
> >>> Best Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Patrick Havelange.  
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I am still open to merging this patchset and maintaining the Counter
> >> subsystem. However, I took the lack of response for my latest
> >> submission to indicate a loss of interest in this patchset's approach.
> >> If there are still people who want this, I can rebase and resend this
> >> patchset for submission; the past few versions have primarily been code
> >> clarity and documentation changes so I believe the core design itself is
> >> somewhat stable now.
> >>
> >> Just let me know how best to proceed and I shall be happy to oblige --
> >> whether to continue maintaining this patchset or to drop this design in
> >> favor of improving the existing IIO Counter code in the kernel.
> >>
> >> I'll CC those from the patchset submission to keep them in the loop.  
> > 
> > I confirm that I still interested to get those patches merged.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Benjamin  
> Hi,
> 
> Same for me,
In a more abstract fashion (I don't have any hardware of this type!)
I'm still keen for the counter subsystem to go in.  Hopefully, if
Greg or anyone else wants to take a detailed look they will have time
this cycle to do so.

I was pretty happy with the last version I read through.  There will
always be things to improved, but as long a we are happy with
the userspace inteface, the little things can happen later.

Jonathan

> 
> Regards,
> Fabrice
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> William Breathitt Gray
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> >> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel  
> > 
> > 
> >   

Re: New IIO/counter driver

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 12:01:57 +0100
Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@st.com> wrote:

> On 1/8/19 11:57 AM, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
> > Le mar. 8 janv. 2019 à 01:46, William Breathitt Gray
> > <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> a écrit :  
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 02:45:37PM +0100, Patrick Havelange wrote:  
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> I'm in the process of adding a new IIO/counter driver, however I also saw
> >>> that there was a work in progress to have a separate counter subsystem (
> >>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-iio&m=153974167727206 ). But it seems there is
> >>> no recent progress on it.
> >>> What is the state of those patches ? Is it still interesting to develop the
> >>> driver as an IIO/counter , or should I use already that new subsystem ?
> >>>
> >>> Best Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Patrick Havelange.  
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I am still open to merging this patchset and maintaining the Counter
> >> subsystem. However, I took the lack of response for my latest
> >> submission to indicate a loss of interest in this patchset's approach.
> >> If there are still people who want this, I can rebase and resend this
> >> patchset for submission; the past few versions have primarily been code
> >> clarity and documentation changes so I believe the core design itself is
> >> somewhat stable now.
> >>
> >> Just let me know how best to proceed and I shall be happy to oblige --
> >> whether to continue maintaining this patchset or to drop this design in
> >> favor of improving the existing IIO Counter code in the kernel.
> >>
> >> I'll CC those from the patchset submission to keep them in the loop.  
> > 
> > I confirm that I still interested to get those patches merged.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Benjamin  
> Hi,
> 
> Same for me,
In a more abstract fashion (I don't have any hardware of this type!)
I'm still keen for the counter subsystem to go in.  Hopefully, if
Greg or anyone else wants to take a detailed look they will have time
this cycle to do so.

I was pretty happy with the last version I read through.  There will
always be things to improved, but as long a we are happy with
the userspace inteface, the little things can happen later.

Jonathan

> 
> Regards,
> Fabrice
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> William Breathitt Gray
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> >> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel  
> > 
> > 
> >   


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel