Re: GPIO TODO

[Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 14:51:40 +0000,
Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi Marc, Linus
> 
> > Subject: Re: GPIO TODO
> 
> Thanks for quick response.
> 
> > 
> > On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 10:00:16 +0000,
> > Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 8:38 AM Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Besides the of_gpio.h, anyone working on immutable irq_chip?
> > >
> > > This work was initiated by Marc Zyngier and he has since had to
> > resign
> > > irqchip maintenance so it lands with Tomas Gleixner that has too
> > much
> > > to do (I think), but rest assured that he will be grateful if you pick
> > > it up, so just send patches.
> 
> Thanks. I will give a look and see what I could do here.
> 
> > 
> > You of course still have the option to simply delete anything that is not
> > yet immutable, or remove the irq_chip patching support. The kernel
> > has been screaming for three years now, and these drivers are pretty
> > much unmaintained.
> 
> I will do my best to add IRQCHIP_IMMUTABLE support
> for remaining irq_chips created by gpio drivers.
> 
> Removing the irq_chips from the gpio drivers that not-converted
> immutable irq chip(if you mean this) would be rejected, I think.

I think it would actually be *very* welcome by quite a few people.

Unmaintained code is a liability, and these GPIO drivers (or at least
their irqchip part) are obviously not looked after in any meaningful
way. Such drivers are userspace facing, and I'm not convinced we want
more unmaintained code in this position.

If you plan to fix these drivers, great. You will be the de-facto
maintainer for them. But it is equally important to evaluate whether
they still have a purpose in the kernel tree.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.