Re: [PATCH v2] mux: gpio-mux: add support for 4:1 2-channels mux

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 23/06/2026 18:44, Tommaso Merciai wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> Sorry for the late reply.
> 
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 05:51:13AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 18/06/2026 15:27, Tommaso Merciai wrote:
>>> Hi Linus,
>>> Thanks for your comment,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 03:04:20PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 3:09 PM Tommaso Merciai
>>>> <tommaso.merciai.xr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> If Peter is unable to attend to it send a pull request to the SoC
>>>>>> tree (if this concerns an SoC) and explain the situation and the
>>>>>> SoC maintainers can pull it in while we are looking for a new
>>>>>> mux (co)maintainer. Unless you're interested in the job?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have the same issue with [1].
>>>>>
>>>>> Starting from [2] (Date: Wed,  5 Nov 2025)
>>>>> I have never received any feedback.
>>>>>
>>>>> How should I proceed?
>>>>
>>>> If Greg can ACK patch 1/2 we can probably merge this set through the
>>>> SoC tree as well. If the PWM subsystem is practically orphaned we
>>>> need to step in and merge stuff.
>>>
>>> +Cc GregKH
>>>
>>> What is your suggestion here?
>>> Thank all.
>>
>> In the past I took a few MUX patches and then send them further to Greg.
>> I did it once and then kind of did not continue. I could do that again,
>> but it won't really solve the problem that MUX needs person actively
>> looking at this. Me taking patches is rather band-aid and I do not have
>> particular business interests around MUX. But maybe you or Renesas have
>> and could help here?
> 
> Thank you for the context. I understand your position, being a
> band-aidmaintainer without direct business interest is not a sustainable
> solutionfor the MUX subsystem long term.

No, you did not get the point.

Why shall we take this unmaintained code? I know you have reasons (you
want), but what are the reasons for us?

> 
> That said, this patch has now been blocked for more than 6 months,

And? This does not mean I should take it.

> and we are looking for a way to get it upstream. Since you mentioned
> you have picked MUX patches before and routed them through the SoC tree
> to Greg, would you bewilling to do the same here?
> 
> It would unblock us while the question of active MUX maintainership is
> sorted out separately.

No. Every other case was following the same process "let's just unblock
my work" and never fixed the actual problem of someone devoting time to
take care of this stuff.

If there is no one looking at this, we should consider removing it.

> 
> +Cc: Geert, Philipp, Ulf
> 
> Geert, what is your take on this? Would you prefer to route it through

I will object when renesas sends it to SoC.


> your tree instead, or do you think Krzysztof picking it via the SoC tree
> makes more sense?

Probably my "no" in this reply feel harsh, but I started in polite way
trying to move it to right direction and you opposed doing standard
vendor throw-over-the-wall approach.

You want to solve only your problem.

Well, I don't want to solve your problem, so if you do not intend to
solve our problem, let's just move on and skip this code.

> 
> I believe it is better handled by the experts in that area, P Zabel, Ulf,
> Geert, and others.
> 
> Thanks to both of you for considering this.

Best regards,
Krzysztof