On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:42:39AM +0200, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > [...] > > > For TI I guess this currently means you simply cannot work > > on GPIO stuff until you know where to go with it unless you > > allow the OMAP GPIO authors to keep churning in arch/arm/*... > > > > That's unless Grant is OK with us moving stuff into > > drivers/gpio that does *not* use gpiolib and utilize singletons to > > get at the gpio_chip addresses (i.e. current form) and keep it > > churning like that until it can be refactored. > > The churn will happen one way or another. the only question is whether > it happens in drivers/gpio or arch/arm/*. > > Grant, what's your feeling here. How much ugliness are you willing to > tolerate in a bulk move to drivers/gpio. At least for OMAP, I am > personally be working on the cleanup/move so I can work either way, > although I know Tony has an obvious preference for moving it to > drivers/gpio. :) > > The OMAP driver is already using gpiolib. The main ugliness in the OMAP > driver is the awful ifdeffery used to handle the differences across the > various SoCs in the OMAP family. I've already got most of that cleaned > up[1]. Go ahead and move stuff. I may as well have the junk in my tree. I request however to have at least some semblance of organization. I'd like each driver filename to be named something like gpio_*.c, and put things into the Makefile/Kconfig in alphabetical order as much as possible. Also, for an awful lot of these SoC gpio controllers there is almost zero value in having a user visible Kconfig entry for it because they are so tiny. I'd rather see on-chip gpio controllers configured in automatically without any user selectable options. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
