From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754009AbcL3NVL (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Dec 2016 08:21:11 -0500 Received: from mail-qt0-f182.google.com ([209.85.216.182]:36095 "EHLO mail-qt0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753696AbcL3NVJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Dec 2016 08:21:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20161124233824.17424-1-gary.bisson@boundarydevices.com> <20161202163520.22927-1-gary.bisson@boundarydevices.com> <20161202163520.22927-3-gary.bisson@boundarydevices.com> From: Linus Walleij Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 14:21:08 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC v2 2/3] pinctrl: imx: use radix trees for groups and functions To: Gary Bisson Cc: Fabio Estevam , Shawn Guo , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Pantelis Antoniou , Vladimir Zapolskiy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org n Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Gary Bisson wrote: > On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Linus Walleij > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Gary Bisson >> wrote: >> >> > This change is inspired from the pinctrl-single architecture. >> > >> > The problem with current implementation is that it isn't possible >> > to add/remove functions and/or groups dynamically. The radix tree >> > offers an easy way to do so. The intent is to offer a follow-up >> > patch later that will enable the use of pinctrl nodes in dt-overlays. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Gary Bisson >> >> This patch doesn't apply on v4.10-rc1 so please rebase it >> on the mainline and resend as v3, include Fabio's review tag. > > Actually it applies if the first patch of this v2 series is also applied first. > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9458883/ > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9458889/ Heh if it is part of a patch series then send it as part of the series and don't confuse me ;) > The 3rd patch of the series can be discarded though since it was just > an example to show the benefit of the first two. > > I guess someone needs to also ack/review the first one. Because > switching to radix tree keeping the const qualifier of the driver > structure isn't really useful. Sure, Fabio? Yours, Linus Walleij