Hi,
On 9/14/20 3:52 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 9/14/20 10:00 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 10:45 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9/14/20 8:12 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 02:20:15PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
...
The soc_button_array code really is x86 specific glue code to translate
various incarnations of gpio-keys in ACPI tables to gpio_keys_platform_data.
As such I wonder if it would not be better to move this driver to
drivers/platform/x86?
AFAIU the above is a justification why PDx86 suits better to host it.
Correct.
I seem to be doing most if not all of the recent work on soc_button_array,
and soon I will be a co-maintainer of drivers/platform/x86. So having it
there and adding me in MAINTAINERS as maintaining it seems to be best?
If you want I can do a patch moving soc_button_array to drivers/platform/x86
and then add the other 3 patches on top and then we can merge all of this
through drivers/platform/x86?
Sorry, misread this first time through, so already merged the 3 patches,
but I to not mind at all moving the driver to platform tree. If you send
me such a patch I will apply it.
Ok.
Andy are you ok with moving the driver to the pdx86 tree too?
Taking into consideration the above, if I read it correctly, I agree.
Feel free to add my Ack.
Ok, since Dmitry's tree currently has some changes to soc_button_array.c,
the plan is to merge the patch through Dmitry's tree.
I will prepare a patch with your Acked-by and submit it.
So to make sure that there won't be any merge issues,
I was comparing bases for
{drivers/input/misc,drivers/platform/x86}/{Makefile,Kconfig}
looking at the versions in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dtor/input.git/log/?h=next
http://git.infradead.org/linux-platform-drivers-x86.git/shortlog/refs/heads/for-next (which atm is just 5.9-rc1)
And the latter has a couple of commits to
drivers/platform/x86/Kconfig which the input tree is missing;
and these commits touch part of the file which moving the driver
over will also be touching.
Dmitry, it seems that your for next-tree is based on 5.7 + 2
large merges and as such does not have all the commits from
5.9-rc1 ?
Anyways this is not urgent, given the conflict I think it
might be best if I send out the patch after 5.10-rc1, using
5.10-rc1 as a base for it.
Regards,
Hans
