On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hi Linus W, >> >> Any comments on the pinctrl patches 3 - 5 in this series? > > I have no problems with this patch #3, as it is just changing syntax, > not semantics. > > The problems start with patch #4. > > I am tormented with mixed feelings about this, because from one point of > view I feel it is breaking the promise of pinctrl-single being a > driver for platforms > where a pin is controlled by a *single* register. > > If this was pinctrl-foo.c I would not have been so much bothered, > but now it is something that was supposed to be self-contained and > simple, pertaining to a single register, starting to look like something > else. > > This is a bit like: "oh yeah just one register controls the pins, but under > some circumstances I also want to mess with this register over here, > and then this register over there ..." etc. > > I'd like Haojian to ACK this to proceed since he's also using this driver > now. Then I feel better on continuing down this road ... > > Then I have a lesser comment on patch #4 since it makes it possible > for this pin controller to support wake-up interrupt, as I don't see how > this plays out with front-end GPIO controllers, but let's discuss that > in the context of that patch. > > Yours, > Linus Walleij > I'm OK on both #3 & #4. So Acked-by: Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@xxxxxxxxx> Regards Haojian -- 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
