On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:32 AM Matti Vaittinen
[off-list ref] wrote:

I think that the disagreement boils down to few styling issues - and
one more pragmatic one. And only what comes to how we allow
implementing the IC specific call-backs for these more complex HW
specific cases. "Styling" boils down to providing getter-functions for
well-defined gpio_regmap properties like regmap, device and fwnode
pointers Vs. exposing these in a well-defined structure as function
parameters.

Just do it the way the maintainer likes it I guess? Michael wrote
the driver so do it in his fashion.

So
at the end of the day it's fair to go on in a way Michael and You find
easiest to maintain.

What makes things easy for me to maintain is active and happy
driver maintainers, so it is paramount that the file looks to Michael
like something he wants to keep maintaining. This removes work
from me and Bartosz.

Maintainer style quirks are common, I have some myself (like
never allowing __underscore_functions) we just adapt to their
quirks and be good diplomats.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel