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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 24/06/2026 10:59, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Tommaso,
> 
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 at 18:44, Tommaso Merciai
> <tommaso.merciai.xr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 05:51:13AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 18/06/2026 15:27, Tommaso Merciai wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>> That said, this patch has now been blocked for more than 6 months,
>> 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.
>>
>> +Cc: Geert, Philipp, Ulf
>>
>> Geert, what is your take on this? Would you prefer to route it through
>> your tree instead, or do you think Krzysztof picking it via the SoC tree
>> makes more sense?
>>
>> I believe it is better handled by the experts in that area, P Zabel, Ulf,
>> Geert, and others.
> 
> As Philipp already reviewed the patch[A], and took its user/consumer[B],
> I think he's best suited to pick it up.
> 
> If that fails, I can take it through renesas-devel.

This means you intend to send it to soc@ which I disagree. This goes
through Greg, not soc@.

I provided my expectations how Renesas could help here. Renesas as a
company, not you as Renesas maintainer. If Renesas is not willing to
help, it is fine and fair, but I see no reasons to be responsible for
this code.

Let me quote my "Guide to Becoming a Linux Kernel Maintainer" slides
from this OSS India:

"We might remove code, which is not maintained"

Best regards,
Krzysztof