Hi, On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 04:07:30PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Sun 2017-11-19 15:12:13, Ladislav Michl wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 01:41:50PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > On Fri 2017-11-17 12:35:40, Sebastian Reichel wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 12:57:03PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > > Ok, not for application, but I can get light sensor to work. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> > > > > > > > > There is no mainline user of this driver and it has a custom API, so > > > > I think the driver should be dropped and an IIO based one should be > > > > created instead. > > > > > > While I agree IIO interface might be better, and would welcome > > > patches, I don't think that dropping the driver is right action at > > > this point. > > > > That's the most elegant solution at all. How would you later motivate > > people to try and test IIO driver? Let's pretend this patch have never > > existed until someone notices and starts playing "you broke kernel ABI" > > game. > > I'm using the driver; I'm even interested in fixing it. Please try not > to make my job any harder than it needs to be, and I'll try to break > ABI. > > That goes to Sebastian, too. > > If you want to convert the driver to IIO, please do so, I can test > the patches. Looks like I need to be more explicit, so be it: NAKed-by: Sebastian Reichel <sre@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Sebastian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
