Re: [PATCH v9 0/3] adp5588-keys: Support for dedicated gpio operation

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 06/08/2024 10:48, Utsav Agarwal via B4 Relay wrote:
> Current state of the driver for the ADP5588/87 only allows partial
> I/O to be used as GPIO. This support was previously present as a
> separate gpio driver, which was dropped with the commit
> 5ddc896088b0 ("gpio: gpio-adp5588: drop the driver") since the
> functionality was deemed to have been merged with adp5588-keys.
> 
> This series of patches re-enables this support by allowing the driver to 
> relax the requirement for registering a keymap and enable pure GPIO 
> operation. 
> 
> Changelog
> ==========
> 
> V2: 
> 	-  Changed gpio_only from a local variable to a member of struct
> 	adp5588_kpad
> 	-  Removed condition from adp5588_probe() to skip adp5588_fw_parse() if 
> 	gpio-only specified. adp558_fw_parse() now handles and returns
> 	0 if gpio-only has been specified.
> 	-  Added a check in adp5588_fw_parse() to make sure keypad 
> 	properties(keypad,num-columns and keypad,num-rows) were not defined when 
> 	gpio-only specified
> 
> V3:
> 	-  Moved device_property_present() for reading "gpio-only" into 
> 	adp558_fw_parse()
> 	-  Added print statements in case of error
> 
> V4:
> 	- Added dt-bindings patch
> 
> Signed-off-by: Utsav Agarwal <utsav.agarwal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> V5:
> 	- Removed extra property "gpio-only", now pure gpio mode is
> 	  detected via the adbsence of keypad specific properties.
> 	- Added dependencies for keypad properties to preserve
> 	  the original requirements in case a pure gpio mode is not
> 	  being used.
> 	- Added additional description for why the "interrupts" property
> 	  was made optional
> 	- Rebased current work based on https://lore.kernel.org/linux-input/ZoLt_qBCQS-tG8Ar@xxxxxxxxxx/
> - Link to v4: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240701-adp5588_gpio_support-v4-0-44bba0445e90@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
> ---
> Changes in v9:

That's some mess in changelog... v1, v2... v5, v9, v8, v7?


> 	- Added dt-binding dependency for interrupt-controller. Now if
> 	  interrupt-controller is specified, interrupts must be
> 	  provided.

So that's the reason of skipping tag?

Best regards,
Krzysztof