Re: [PATCH] gpio: Renesas RZ GPIO driver

[Linus Walleij]

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Is it so that arch/sh is more soft on this for example...?
>> Can some arch maintainer like SH/Paul ACK this approach?
>>
>> Read: SH is not moving to device tree...?
>
> From what I can tell this GPIO block is not used with SH, so I don't
> think SH is related, but regarding DT on SH, do you know when it was
> decided that other architectures also were supposed to move DT?

I don't think these is any such decision, I'm just asking. I know
that we only want to see DT on new archs and old hairy board code
should be ridded using DT ... So I just want to know what the
situation is like wrt Super-H.

>>> Tested with yet-to-be-posted platform device and DT devices on
>>> r7s72100 and Genmai using LEDs, DIP switches and I2C bitbang.
>>
>> Do you think the maintainers will merge the platform
>> device approach?
>
> I would not assume so. But the goal with these patches is  not
> upstream, instead they basically serve as a stop-gap solution between
> now and when I get OK that the DT bits in this GPIO driver looks fine.
> If they are going to be merged or not is a different question IMO.

Um so as an upstream maintainer I don't really know what to do
at this point :-)

But a DT-only driver is uncontroversial so I'd merge that.

> I'll ditch the platform data interface and post a V2.

Okay that sounds good...

Thanks,
Linus Walleij
--
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/