Am Wed, 24 Aug 2022 18:59:17 +0300 schrieb Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 5:04 PM Henning Schild > <henning.schild@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Add GPIO support for Nuvoton NCT6116 chip. Nuvoton SuperIO chips are > > very similar to the ones from Fintek. In other subsystems they also > > share drivers and are called a family of drivers. > > > > For the GPIO subsystem the only difference is that the direction > > bit is reversed and that there is only one data bit per pin. On the > > SuperIO level the logical device is another one. > > > > On a chip level we do not have a manufacturer ID to check and also > > no revision. > > ... > > > +#define gpio_dir_invert(type) ((type) == nct6116d) > > +#define gpio_data_single(type) ((type) == nct6116d) > > What you are trying to do here is to put GPIO maintainers / heavy > contributors on a minefield (basically moving your job to their > shoulders). Please, provide a proper namespace and not gpio_ one. I'm > talking in my "GPIO heavy contributor" hat on. No i was trying to avoid having to touch those other 4 existing macros, touching lines that checkpatch.pl and you will pick on again. Adding the prefixes just to those new ones would be inconsistent and also not nice. > With that fixed I can survive w/o pr_fmt() being in this patch. If you > are going to address this, you may add my tag in a new version. It is a bit unfortunate that you seem to be surprised where i said i was going to not address this. And once the new series comes insist on another round ... which involves testing and what not. But hey, i will send a v6 with style refactoring patches and test it all over again. Thanks everyone for the review, i hope that next version will be acceptable and not open new discussion with the new patches coming. regards, Henning
