On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 07:45:51PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 15:08:17 +0100 > Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 11:31:59AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 4:58 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > David Lechner (1): > > > > counter:ti-eqep: remove floor > > > > > > I'm not sure why that ti-eqep counter driver seems to be in your > > > "iio/staging" pile rather than "char/misc", but whatever.. > > > > Jonathan said why that was needed, I think it was due to fixes in the > > counter core code, but he can verify this better than I can... > > Hi Linus / Greg, > > Bit of history involved here... > > The counter drivers started out as just another sensor type > under IIO, but ended up pushing the boundaries of the ABI a lot - > ultimately making it clear that they really didn't fit in IIO. > William came up with a better abstraction / framework that > became drivers/counter/, but currently the patch flow for > drivers/counter/ is sufficiently low that I handle their > patches along side IIO rather than via a separate tree. > > There is also a cross dependency because of legacy IIO ABI > though we are aiming to drop that either this cycle or next. > > Hope that clears it up. If either of you would prefer > it a different way in future let me know. > > This particular fix was local to the driver - it was pretending > it supported something that hardware couldn't actually do. Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense to me! greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
