Re: [PATCH 3/4] of/gpio: Implement GPIOLIB notifier hooks
From: Grant Likely
Date: Sat Mar 06 2010 - 11:43:50 EST
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Anton Vorontsov
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:54:56PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
>> The last version of the patches were posted on Feb 8. -rc8 was
>> released on Feb 12. For changes to common code, that is a little late
>> for getting queued up for the merge window. If it was a subsystem
>> that I maintain, say SPI, then I doubt I would have picked it up for
> And of course the part of the OF rework, which was first posted
> for *review* on Feb 03, is a completely different story?
> 48 files changed, 317 insertions(+), 575 deletions(-)
Completely uncontroversial changes with zero functional behaviour
change. There was no uncertainty about these ones and they were
posted almost a week earlier.
> It's in Linus' tree now.
> And the other part of the OF rework that was posted for review
> on Feb 13 is another story too? It's in Linus' tree as well.
All cleanups and bugfixes except for "Don't assume HAVE_LMB" which
Jeremy had already posted earlier for review.
> Your patches touch 3 architectures, and a lot of the code that
> is used by all the OF drivers, still 03 and 13 Feb was OK for
>> But I am not the GPIO maintainer.
> David is. And I heard only positive feedback on the patches
> last time.
>> For the record, my main concerns are:
>> - Now that I see the implementation, I think that it is too complex.
>> The bus notifiers really aren't needed and it can be done with much
>> lower impact on the core gpiolib code.
> That's a non-argument, what is "lower impact"? Do I touch any
> hot paths? And if nothing has changed, David (again, the gpiolib
> maintainer) is happy with the notifiers approach, why would you
Adding unneeded notifier infrastructure is churn I don't want to see.
>> Changes to common code don't work that way. Sometimes things just
>> don't get enough attention and they wait another cycle, get reworked,
>> or get dropped entirely.
> See above wrt OF rework patches.
which all got attention, were uncontroversial, and did not introduce
>> For one, the device node pointer is moving out of archdata into
>> 'struct device' proper and I've got patches adding OF hooks into the
>> core of the platform bus. If those patches look good to GregKH, then
>> I'll be pursing the same pattern for the other bus types (i2c, spi,
>> etc), and it will be further argument for putting the OF hooks
>> directly into gpiolib instead of using a notifier. I'll be posting
>> the patches as soon as the merge window closes.
> I don't get it. Why is it a problem to change your patches that
> ought to be queued for 2.6.*35*?
It's not, and they are going to be queued for 2.6.35. In fact, I
didn't posted them this week to avoid adding confusion to the merge
window. The issues isn't changing my patches. It is that I don't
like the notifier approach, and I intend to prove that it can be done
in a better way.
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/