From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
To: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@atmel.com>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: change function behavior for per pin muxing controllers
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:07:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdb3+9=seJo7w5nrJS-iURH3SnH-PYVvJCQ-S619KOcKbg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55925EB1.1030500@atmel.com>
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> wrote:
> - no agreement on 3 points:
> 1/ ways to use groups in generic pinctrl
> 2/ ways to describe a comprehensive configuration in device tree
> 3/ readability of a sysfs information
>
> - no way out on the generic pinctrl little changes that Ludovic proposed
> as Linus W. never gave his point of view (RFC posts on April the 2nd).
Yeah I know. I am battling with this, it is one of those topics
where you feel "eeeehhhh" and try to avoid looking at it. Sadly
I have to...
I refer to Documentation/ManagementStyle, chapter 1,
"Decisions".
What makes me feel uneasy about these things is that the decisions
are irreversible due to the nature of the device tree bindings.
I am not a manager, but a maintainer...
> Ludovic explained at length our point of view and gave detailed
> technical arguments. We don't intend to convince you, we just would like
> the harmless modifications to be integrated.
So is it universally agreed that the changes are harmless?
If they are harmless, I would be able to revert the patch and
nothing breaks in the world, I don't think that is the case. The
case is a piece of code and functionality that is not AT91-specific
but has to be maintained in the core pinctrl code forever.
That is basically the big problem with anything device tree.
It etches stuff in stone so it can't be changed, like ever.
Further, the decision on whether to etch this or that is
pushed to Linux subsystem maintainers, who are clearly
unsuited for the task. :(
> As we preferred to give a chance to the generic pinconf/pinctrl for our
> use by adding a little bit of flexibility, we are now in a situation
> where we are nearly obliged to give up this approach and write a new
> driver without the use of the generic facilities: what a pity!
> We lost several months of useless work to match what we thought the
> maintainer would prefer.
>
> So Linus, do you confirm that we won't go further with this approach?
>
> We are pretty disappointed by the way this interaction with the pinctrl
> sub-system went.
I'm sorry, I am just trying to wait for consensus but it seems to
be hard for that to happen.
Things I need:
- More DT bindings people to look at this patch.
- More other driver maintainers to look at this patch.
Sacha is one of those I'd like to get an opinion from
for example. ACKs, Reviewed-by's are always good.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
To: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre-AIFe0yeh4nAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org>,
Ludovic Desroches
<ludovic.desroches-AIFe0yeh4nAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org"
<linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-gpio-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<linux-gpio-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: change function behavior for per pin muxing controllers
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:07:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdb3+9=seJo7w5nrJS-iURH3SnH-PYVvJCQ-S619KOcKbg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55925EB1.1030500-AIFe0yeh4nAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre-AIFe0yeh4nAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> - no agreement on 3 points:
> 1/ ways to use groups in generic pinctrl
> 2/ ways to describe a comprehensive configuration in device tree
> 3/ readability of a sysfs information
>
> - no way out on the generic pinctrl little changes that Ludovic proposed
> as Linus W. never gave his point of view (RFC posts on April the 2nd).
Yeah I know. I am battling with this, it is one of those topics
where you feel "eeeehhhh" and try to avoid looking at it. Sadly
I have to...
I refer to Documentation/ManagementStyle, chapter 1,
"Decisions".
What makes me feel uneasy about these things is that the decisions
are irreversible due to the nature of the device tree bindings.
I am not a manager, but a maintainer...
> Ludovic explained at length our point of view and gave detailed
> technical arguments. We don't intend to convince you, we just would like
> the harmless modifications to be integrated.
So is it universally agreed that the changes are harmless?
If they are harmless, I would be able to revert the patch and
nothing breaks in the world, I don't think that is the case. The
case is a piece of code and functionality that is not AT91-specific
but has to be maintained in the core pinctrl code forever.
That is basically the big problem with anything device tree.
It etches stuff in stone so it can't be changed, like ever.
Further, the decision on whether to etch this or that is
pushed to Linux subsystem maintainers, who are clearly
unsuited for the task. :(
> As we preferred to give a chance to the generic pinconf/pinctrl for our
> use by adding a little bit of flexibility, we are now in a situation
> where we are nearly obliged to give up this approach and write a new
> driver without the use of the generic facilities: what a pity!
> We lost several months of useless work to match what we thought the
> maintainer would prefer.
>
> So Linus, do you confirm that we won't go further with this approach?
>
> We are pretty disappointed by the way this interaction with the pinctrl
> sub-system went.
I'm sorry, I am just trying to wait for consensus but it seems to
be hard for that to happen.
Things I need:
- More DT bindings people to look at this patch.
- More other driver maintainers to look at this patch.
Sacha is one of those I'd like to get an opinion from
for example. ACKs, Reviewed-by's are always good.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: linus.walleij@linaro.org (Linus Walleij)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RESEND PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: change function behavior for per pin muxing controllers
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:07:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdb3+9=seJo7w5nrJS-iURH3SnH-PYVvJCQ-S619KOcKbg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55925EB1.1030500@atmel.com>
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> wrote:
> - no agreement on 3 points:
> 1/ ways to use groups in generic pinctrl
> 2/ ways to describe a comprehensive configuration in device tree
> 3/ readability of a sysfs information
>
> - no way out on the generic pinctrl little changes that Ludovic proposed
> as Linus W. never gave his point of view (RFC posts on April the 2nd).
Yeah I know. I am battling with this, it is one of those topics
where you feel "eeeehhhh" and try to avoid looking at it. Sadly
I have to...
I refer to Documentation/ManagementStyle, chapter 1,
"Decisions".
What makes me feel uneasy about these things is that the decisions
are irreversible due to the nature of the device tree bindings.
I am not a manager, but a maintainer...
> Ludovic explained at length our point of view and gave detailed
> technical arguments. We don't intend to convince you, we just would like
> the harmless modifications to be integrated.
So is it universally agreed that the changes are harmless?
If they are harmless, I would be able to revert the patch and
nothing breaks in the world, I don't think that is the case. The
case is a piece of code and functionality that is not AT91-specific
but has to be maintained in the core pinctrl code forever.
That is basically the big problem with anything device tree.
It etches stuff in stone so it can't be changed, like ever.
Further, the decision on whether to etch this or that is
pushed to Linux subsystem maintainers, who are clearly
unsuited for the task. :(
> As we preferred to give a chance to the generic pinconf/pinctrl for our
> use by adding a little bit of flexibility, we are now in a situation
> where we are nearly obliged to give up this approach and write a new
> driver without the use of the generic facilities: what a pity!
> We lost several months of useless work to match what we thought the
> maintainer would prefer.
>
> So Linus, do you confirm that we won't go further with this approach?
>
> We are pretty disappointed by the way this interaction with the pinctrl
> sub-system went.
I'm sorry, I am just trying to wait for consensus but it seems to
be hard for that to happen.
Things I need:
- More DT bindings people to look at this patch.
- More other driver maintainers to look at this patch.
Sacha is one of those I'd like to get an opinion from
for example. ACKs, Reviewed-by's are always good.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-13 12:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-10 15:04 [RESEND PATCH 0/2] get pinctrl more flexible for per pin muxing controllers Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` [RESEND PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: change function behavior " Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-15 15:58 ` Stephen Warren
2015-06-15 15:58 ` Stephen Warren
2015-06-15 15:58 ` Stephen Warren
2015-06-17 12:38 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-17 12:38 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-17 12:38 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-17 15:55 ` Stephen Warren
2015-06-17 15:55 ` Stephen Warren
2015-06-18 12:33 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-18 12:33 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-18 12:33 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-14 5:57 ` Sascha Hauer
2015-07-14 5:57 ` Sascha Hauer
2015-07-15 7:46 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-15 7:46 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-15 7:46 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-15 8:29 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-15 8:29 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-15 8:29 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-27 9:43 ` Linus Walleij
2015-07-27 9:43 ` Linus Walleij
2015-07-27 12:12 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-27 12:12 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-30 9:17 ` Nicolas Ferre
2015-06-30 9:17 ` Nicolas Ferre
2015-06-30 9:17 ` Nicolas Ferre
2015-07-13 12:07 ` Linus Walleij [this message]
2015-07-13 12:07 ` Linus Walleij
2015-07-13 12:07 ` Linus Walleij
2015-07-14 6:54 ` Sascha Hauer
2015-07-14 6:54 ` Sascha Hauer
2015-07-13 12:13 ` Linus Walleij
2015-07-13 12:13 ` Linus Walleij
2015-06-10 15:04 ` [RESEND PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: introduce complex pin description Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-15 16:01 ` Stephen Warren
2015-06-15 16:01 ` Stephen Warren
2015-06-15 16:01 ` Stephen Warren
2015-06-17 12:42 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-17 12:42 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-17 12:42 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-14 6:13 ` Sascha Hauer
2015-07-14 6:13 ` Sascha Hauer
2015-07-15 8:45 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-15 8:45 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-15 8:45 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-15 10:05 ` Sascha Hauer
2015-07-15 10:05 ` Sascha Hauer
2015-07-15 13:52 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-15 13:52 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-15 13:52 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` [RESEND PROTO] pinctrl: rough draft for a future controller Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` [RESEND PROTO] ARM: at91/dt: proto dt Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` Ludovic Desroches
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CACRpkdb3+9=seJo7w5nrJS-iURH3SnH-PYVvJCQ-S619KOcKbg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ludovic.desroches@atmel.com \
--cc=nicolas.ferre@atmel.com \
--cc=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
--cc=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.