On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So you exchanged many obvious and easy to fix problems with a few hard > ones. I don't agree that's a good idea, but you seem to be willing to > try it. Good luck. I think instead of going to sarcastic remarks you can say you NACK the patch and suggest that it be reverted? The problem I have here as maintainer is that both you and Dmitry are very smart people and I have a great deal of trust invested in both of you. When two valued contributors give me very different advice I get a bit confused and maybe the best option is not to change anything at all right now, and just revert Dmitry's patch. git grep -e 'gpio.*optional(' | wc -l gives 154 use sites outside drivers/gpio, so it is not impossible to fix this if we want a good and strict order to it. I'm just a bit overworked to do it myself right now. What do you all say, is it better to revert Dmitry's patch and instead go around and fix the consumers to do it correctly everywhere, after hammering down the exact semantics? Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html