On Tue, 15 Mar 2022, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Lee Jones (2022-03-15 08:48:08) > > On Tue, 15 Mar 2022, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > > Quoting Lee Jones (2022-03-15 04:30:49) > > > > It's tough to say from what I was sent above. > > > > > > > > But yes, sounds like it. > > > > > > > > We do not want any device 'functionality' in MFD ideally. > > > > > > > > > > I put it next to the existing cros-ec binding. The existing binding is > > > there because of historical reasons as far as I know. Otherwise it > > > didn't seem MFD related so I didn't Cc mfd maintainer/list. New file > > > additions don't usually conflict with anything and this is in the > > > bindings directory so the driver side maintainer would be picking up the > > > binding. > > > > That's not how it works unfortunately. > > > > This file is located in the MFD bindings directory, so I would be > > picking it up (if it ends up staying here). > > The way it works is arbitrary Correct. > and up to maintainer's choice. Which *should* be reflected in MAINTAINERS and by extension get_maintainer.pl. As is the case here. :) > I'll move it out of the mfd directory :) That does sound like a good solution, thanks Stephen. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
