On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 12:05 PM Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 11:03:15AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 10:35 PM Dmitry Torokhov > > <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Dmitry, could you fix this? Just patch away in gpiolib-of.c. > > > > > > Sure, I'll add a few quirks. I wonder what is the best way to merge > > > this? I can create a bunch of IBs to be pulled, or I can send quirks to > > > you/Bartosz and once they land send the patches to drivers... > > > > When I did it I was sufficiently convinced that I was the only one patching > > the quirks in gpiolib-of.c that merge window so I just included it as > > a hunk in the driver patch. If there will be some more patches to that > > file I guess some separate patch(es) for gpiolib-of.c is needed, maybe > > an immutable branch for those if it becomes a lot. > > Are renames likely to be a common quirk on the road to libgpiod > conversion? > > I admit I sort of expected it to be common enough that there would be > one rename quirk in the code supported by an alphabetized string table. > Such a table would certainly still provoke troublesome merges but ones > that are trivially resolved. Dmitry added a table of sorts, the problems are usually a bit unique for each instance of nonstandard DT GPIO bindings, that's why I mostly solved it with open coding in gpiolib-of.c. Yours, Linus Walleij
