From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Walleij Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: zynq: Setup chip->base based on alias ID Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 15:56:05 +0200 Message-ID: References: <6ee982f8eb6e07f9ecbb0cc5093152f4a16b9c31.1523454899.git.michal.simek@xilinx.com> <60652f48-2a98-414b-5cff-25890a6da37f@xilinx.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <60652f48-2a98-414b-5cff-25890a6da37f@xilinx.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Michal Simek Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Michal Simek , Steffen Trumtrar , Peter Crosthwaite , "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" , Rob Herring , Linux ARM List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Michal Simek wrote: > If you don't want this patch I understand that and it will become just > another soc vendor patch out of mainline. I don't really know what to do, so that is why I'm discussing. It's one of those gray areas. >>From one point of view there is the purist stance that we should only support what the mainline tree does, and be strict and consistent so we don't accumulate to many nasty hacks. On the other hand, it is completely possible that all users of this particular driver actually must have this patch, and then I just push them to use a deviant vendor tree for no good reason. Would it be possible that I apply the patch, and somehow also establish some understanding with all users of the Xilinx platform that whatever legacy applications are out there must start to migrate towards using the character device so this reliance on the numberspace doesn't stick around forever? For example can we make a patch to some systems like arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-*.dts adding proper GPIO line names to these device trees, such as was made in e.g. commit f6b1674d570aa1 "arm64: dts: qcom: sbc: Name GPIO lines" After all that is what I strive for as maintainer, as the IETF motto says: "rough consensus and running code" Yours, Linus Walleij From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linus.walleij@linaro.org (Linus Walleij) Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 15:56:05 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] gpio: zynq: Setup chip->base based on alias ID In-Reply-To: <60652f48-2a98-414b-5cff-25890a6da37f@xilinx.com> References: <6ee982f8eb6e07f9ecbb0cc5093152f4a16b9c31.1523454899.git.michal.simek@xilinx.com> <60652f48-2a98-414b-5cff-25890a6da37f@xilinx.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Michal Simek wrote: > If you don't want this patch I understand that and it will become just > another soc vendor patch out of mainline. I don't really know what to do, so that is why I'm discussing. It's one of those gray areas. >>From one point of view there is the purist stance that we should only support what the mainline tree does, and be strict and consistent so we don't accumulate to many nasty hacks. On the other hand, it is completely possible that all users of this particular driver actually must have this patch, and then I just push them to use a deviant vendor tree for no good reason. Would it be possible that I apply the patch, and somehow also establish some understanding with all users of the Xilinx platform that whatever legacy applications are out there must start to migrate towards using the character device so this reliance on the numberspace doesn't stick around forever? For example can we make a patch to some systems like arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-*.dts adding proper GPIO line names to these device trees, such as was made in e.g. commit f6b1674d570aa1 "arm64: dts: qcom: sbc: Name GPIO lines" After all that is what I strive for as maintainer, as the IETF motto says: "rough consensus and running code" Yours, Linus Walleij