Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for May 23 (sound/soc/codecs)

From: Mark Brown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 08:08:43 +0800

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 03:53:43PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2011 06:47:28 +0800 Mark Brown wrote:

> > case, please talk to the architecture maintainers about this - it's an
> > issue in the architecture GPIO support (or lack thereof) rather than a
> > driver problem.

> except that a driver should not assume that defines like
> GPIOF_OUT_INIT_LOW are always available.

No, really we should.  The GPIO APIs are stubbed out when not in use for
a very good reason, think about the usability here.  The goal here isn't
to litter the code with ifdefs - if architectures aren't able to keep up
with API changes they should convert to using gpiolib so this stuff
happens automatically (indeed, I can't think of any good reason for an
architecture to not be using gpiolib at this point).

> > Also adding Dmitry who submitted the driver - Randy, please try to
> > remember to CC relevant people.

> Which driver did Dmitry submit?  how would I know that?
> I don't download every linux-next git tree -- just linux-next tarballs.

I *strongly* suggest looking at git if you want to find relevant people
to mail; the internal documentation in the code really isn't a terribly
useful guide, the authors listed in the code often bear no relation to
who's actually working on it at the current time.

> and wm8915.c says:
> MODULE_AUTHOR("Mark Brown <[email-masked]>");

You've clearly not looked at MAINTAINERS for this one.