Re: [PATCH RFC] gpio: move intel drivers into their own directory

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 5:05 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 3:31 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > > Just send it now, in any case my series is blocked as I have not seen
> > > > a consensus on what to do. Or do we? Bart, Sakari?
> > >
> > > If I didn't make myself clear: I would love it if there was a single source
> > > of intel GPIO pull-requests (most likely Andy) for *all* intel GPIO drivers
> > > even if they have additional reviewers. I'd also love for them to live in
> > > a single subdirectory at drivers/gpio/intel/. Otherwise, it's still chaos like
> > > right now, just worse.
> > >
> > > This is in line with pinctrl vendor directories. I also don't see a reason for
> > > moving Kconfig options into their own vendor submenus if we keep the top-level
> > > entries sorted by driver type.
> >
> > So, as of now it doesn't seem like an agreement among all parties. My
> > opinion is that it's good to have PMIC be separated from the other
> > code, although I don't know if the camera PMIC GPIO driver that is
> > used with IPUx is good to go under the intel/pmic subfolder. I also
> > believe that camera related drivers are the best to be handled by the
> > media tree (as it's done, exempli gratia, for int3472).
> >
> > At the end of the day you will have a single PR from me, but it won't
> > include camera stuff unless Sakari agrees to send a PR to me (which I
> > think won't be the case).
>
> I thought we agreed usbio would be moved out of drivers/gpio/ and into
> media? That leaves intel/pmic as the only subdirectory IIUC.

Hmm... I cited the int3472 MAINTAINERS record to point exactly on the
variant where it's left under drivers/gpio. Also IIUC Hans' opinion is
that GPIO drivers even being USB GPIO expanders for camera are still
GPIOs.


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko