Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/4] Drop ROHM BD70528 support

From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
	Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>,
	Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-power <linux-power@fi.rohmeurope.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/4] Drop ROHM BD70528 support
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 20:33:26 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMRc=Mc-+ZR1PR9p=cXkfMWdKn1d1VCxmhBknSzNaDjepfpV-g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50c260a1-c6d0-1a0b-45da-ab1a2d1379c3@gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 7:41 PM Matti Vaittinen
<mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/16/21 18:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 2:52 PM Matti Vaittinen
> > <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Drop ROHM BD70528 support
> >>
> >> Unfortunately there has not been a big demand for ROHM BD70528
> >> IC. The few users I know control PMIC from separate M4-core,
> >> which is not running Linux. I am not aware of any users of this
> >> Linux driver.
> >>
> >> While I did really like this IC and writing the drivers for it,
> >> seems like these drivers are becoming useless burden. So, I see
> >> no point in maintaining them. Let's just drop the drivers if
> >> there is no objections to this series. :(
> >>
> >> The regulator, WDG and power-supply drivers were already dropped.
> >>
> >> The RTC and clk drivers remain in use by few other ROHM IC drivers.
> >> Nevertheless, they are already converted to not depend the BD70528
> >> defines during previous cycle.
> >>
> >> This series cleans the remaining pieces, GPIO, MFD, dt-bindings and
> >> MAINTAINER entries. The GPIO code uses defines from MFD - but the GPIO
> >> part is also depending on MFD KConfig entry - so there should be no
> >> breakages even if the patches were applied to respective subsystem trees
> >> and were not carried via single tree.
> >
> > FWIW, no objections from me.
>
> Thanks Andy!
>
> I see acks from Andu, Bartosz, Lee and Rob. It'd be nice to see ack from
> Linus W too - but other than that - I guess this is good to go. Any
> preferences regarding the tree(s) that could carry the patches? All via
> MFD or each patch merged to the subsystem it fits the best?
>
> Best Regards
>         Matti Vaittinen

Normally Lee takes MFD patches together with those touching relevant subsystems.

Bart