Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] Input: gpio_keys.c: Enable use with non-local GPIO chips.

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:02:42 +0100
Mark Brown [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 01:48:05PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 06:27:45PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

quoted

Right, but this is something that it's not reasonable to implement in
board code - if nothing else implementing it in board code would mean
we'd got lots of repitition of common patterns.

quoted

I agree here. I just disagree that we should be implementing this in
driver core by having special -EAGAIN handling. Having a common
library-like code (probably tied to device-tree) that handles device
dependencies would be great.

Ah, that's more OK then.  I'm not entirely sure about the -EAGAIN
proposal but it does seem to have some advantages in terms of
deployment.

quoted

Ah, OK, so we basically in agreement here with the exception that I do
not want the band-aid to hit mainline since it takes the heat off people
who need inter-device dependency to actually work.

quoted

Can the initcall stuff be kept out of mainline? I'd expect

The init order stuff is in mainline already, you're far too late to the
party here.

quoted

there exist board-specific trees where such patches could be kept? Or
maybe interested parties could create board-crap tree to store patches
like this one?

Keeping things in board trees is exactly the sort of thing we want to
avoid people doing.  That just means people do all sorts of stuff that
wouldn't be acceptable upstream, either out of ignorance or through
knowing that only their systems have to work with what they're doing,
and just don't bother working upstream at all half the time making life
miserable for pretty much everyone.

Looks like we all agree then?
Dmitry, would you consider the late_initcall() part of the hack now
(temporarily)?

Best regards,

-- 
David Jander
Protonic Holland.