On 1/8/19 11:57 AM, Benjamin Gaignard wrote: > Le mar. 8 janv. 2019 à 01:46, William Breathitt Gray > <vilhelm.gray@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit : >> >> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 02:45:37PM +0100, Patrick Havelange wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I'm in the process of adding a new IIO/counter driver, however I also saw >>> that there was a work in progress to have a separate counter subsystem ( >>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-iio&m=153974167727206 ). But it seems there is >>> no recent progress on it. >>> What is the state of those patches ? Is it still interesting to develop the >>> driver as an IIO/counter , or should I use already that new subsystem ? >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Patrick Havelange. >> >> Hello, >> >> I am still open to merging this patchset and maintaining the Counter >> subsystem. However, I took the lack of response for my latest >> submission to indicate a loss of interest in this patchset's approach. >> If there are still people who want this, I can rebase and resend this >> patchset for submission; the past few versions have primarily been code >> clarity and documentation changes so I believe the core design itself is >> somewhat stable now. >> >> Just let me know how best to proceed and I shall be happy to oblige -- >> whether to continue maintaining this patchset or to drop this design in >> favor of improving the existing IIO Counter code in the kernel. >> >> I'll CC those from the patchset submission to keep them in the loop. > > I confirm that I still interested to get those patches merged. > > Regards, > Benjamin Hi, Same for me, Regards, Fabrice >> >> Sincerely, >> >> William Breathitt Gray >> >> _______________________________________________ >> linux-arm-kernel mailing list >> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel > > >
