From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E8CBC282DD for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 23:12:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5176206DB for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 23:12:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="s4oiBbU1" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727298AbgAHXMc (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jan 2020 18:12:32 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-f193.google.com ([209.85.208.193]:40392 "EHLO mail-lj1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726721AbgAHXMc (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jan 2020 18:12:32 -0500 Received: by mail-lj1-f193.google.com with SMTP id u1so5112862ljk.7 for ; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 15:12:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9PdCnLDfRrpTe57HbjA01QxkIMaIeln31WkhfMvjiwc=; b=s4oiBbU1nrcXdyE6ajcf/7ipB/YOE89ljAV/j8S3V1GrEIqoBOr47JYnVmEsKRV8GJ m4q0+MdmjmzPl9uXRDzb5Amt57zy3bc3WxPF0K5yDX2VpMdCN/AhXoZnSdWYKA7heegf wRS55OdtQNKvabxlFMD4rrY3EAmDaAyQ/BZXlmPZ0CYqE3Lb2AxGF4u8Wn6qmi2T8j5O cdnewIk+KP+Htuwy0PgAnh2udE8rVTcaKVrkgALjESDjkQ3mY3GfGNqQXizf+0ZMl2Q6 vXSmyvELflYoWLjnjXyFw556vBiDknK3YpTds+gEithiEvcry2P64oYpOGLedDWey+af esbA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9PdCnLDfRrpTe57HbjA01QxkIMaIeln31WkhfMvjiwc=; b=M8Wl5FGTVh6hGZmDiIM6ELdYd4cfTaY9zxJygfzWlf69HsF9nkmxdErkP28ygSI6Gz tpxPYXcYe9FQqhYuR3mUW+/k/fU0FZQrHnV8Xr3AgpibMQQJgE565W3fDWyi0/a1ldFL 4P+oJWPOn4s7rYbFs9q+SKXt8fQRCGvIoHTOlc6fy3ohiF+Yx81u6xRSjRDOE/NSXB86 I0S64oK1/oTQTHvknwbCDHnyw4wqfAND4ww7iqm0KX58ekYQPyHWRCm06E4rzTRUfVib nUlcrnwoRLdhLGpCgmu0SO7uFLnX3py08hdGAWk+0wxjmjHghhlwV+GZFO/5z97c9rLB TK2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVcE40JsA5zfZ+gFlZ7pzwRUbJpB/gnYOOHvJ2frth6JyXcMO+X ZfyIaCeNt3DKguxNBQLRTWG1kTd3MDd9rkHZ8OGzQg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzqb9iQtaKF+nk9oiPjLBxsjLdTUTmVU669xZcPD3ecVDu582+r9iYp2mPEVpHt4i81yKoxko8lyI3k7+1q8V0= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:844e:: with SMTP id u14mr4342769ljh.183.1578525150247; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 15:12:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191127084253.16356-1-geert+renesas@glider.be> <20191127084253.16356-6-geert+renesas@glider.be> In-Reply-To: From: Linus Walleij Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 00:12:18 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] gpio: Add GPIO Aggregator/Repeater driver To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Bartosz Golaszewski , Jonathan Corbet , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Harish Jenny K N , Eugeniu Rosca , Alexander Graf , Peter Maydell , Paolo Bonzini , Phil Reid , Marc Zyngier , Christoffer Dall , Magnus Damm , "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" , Linux Doc Mailing List , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , Linux-Renesas , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , QEMU Developers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: devicetree-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 9:23 AM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > The rest I think we cleared out else I will see it when I review again. > > The remaining discussion point is "GPIO Repeater in Device Tree", i.e. > the GPIO inverter usecase, which might be solved better by adding a > GPIO_INVERTED flag. > > Shall I rip that out, incorporate review comments, and report? Don't know, if it blocks progress I guess the diplomatic solution is to do that, divide and conquer. But review is a social process so I don't really know the right strategy. Yours, Linus Walleij