From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934384Ab1ESTal (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 May 2011 15:30:41 -0400 Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:41983 "EHLO mail-vw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934235Ab1ESTak (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 May 2011 15:30:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 15:30:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Nicolas Pitre X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home To: Sascha Hauer cc: Shawn Guo , Linus Walleij , Linus Walleij , Jonas Aaberg , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Grant Likely , Lee Jones , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] mach-u300: rewrite gpio driver, move to drivers/gpio In-Reply-To: <20110519191156.GE2429@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: References: <1303910002-3333-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@stericsson.com> <20110519085638.GA26816@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> <20110519135631.GB26816@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> <20110519191156.GE2429@pengutronix.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 19 May 2011, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 09:56:32PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 02:21:27PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Shawn Guo wrote: > > > > > > > I start working on moving mxs gpio (arch/arm/mach-mxs/gpio.c) into > > > > driver/gpio, and I see the possibility to go a different approach > > > > from U300 one posted here. > > > > > > I've tried to figure out what relation the mail has to the U300 driver > > > but cannot find any, more than that it's moving a driver... Please > > > start a new mail thread. > > > > > I will post mxs-gpio driver once I get it done. Then please review > > the code and see the difference between mxs-gpio and u300-gpio, > > though these hardwares have something in common. > > I'm pretty sure they have something in common and even more that *all* > gpio drivers have something in common. I wonder if it really makes sense > to move the gpio driver to drivers/gpio without creating a common > mmio_gpio_chip beforehand. This can't be very hard. I do think that performing the move first will make a subsequent conversion easier. And since a move is a no-op from a functional point of view, it is the safest thing to do first. Nicolas From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nicolas.pitre@linaro.org (Nicolas Pitre) Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 15:30:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [PATCH 02/10] mach-u300: rewrite gpio driver, move to drivers/gpio In-Reply-To: <20110519191156.GE2429@pengutronix.de> References: <1303910002-3333-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@stericsson.com> <20110519085638.GA26816@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> <20110519135631.GB26816@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> <20110519191156.GE2429@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, 19 May 2011, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 09:56:32PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 02:21:27PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Shawn Guo wrote: > > > > > > > I start working on moving mxs gpio (arch/arm/mach-mxs/gpio.c) into > > > > driver/gpio, and I see the possibility to go a different approach > > > > from U300 one posted here. > > > > > > I've tried to figure out what relation the mail has to the U300 driver > > > but cannot find any, more than that it's moving a driver... Please > > > start a new mail thread. > > > > > I will post mxs-gpio driver once I get it done. Then please review > > the code and see the difference between mxs-gpio and u300-gpio, > > though these hardwares have something in common. > > I'm pretty sure they have something in common and even more that *all* > gpio drivers have something in common. I wonder if it really makes sense > to move the gpio driver to drivers/gpio without creating a common > mmio_gpio_chip beforehand. This can't be very hard. I do think that performing the move first will make a subsequent conversion easier. And since a move is a no-op from a functional point of view, it is the safest thing to do first. Nicolas