On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:55:36AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Jean Delvare <jdelv...@suse.de> wrote: > > > The pinctrl-baytrail driver builds just fine as a module so give > > users this option. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <jdelv...@suse.de> > > Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com> > > Cc: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.kroge...@linux.intel.com> > > Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org> > > --- > > This was discussed almost one year ago, with no clear conclusion, but > > also no evidence that the driver can't be built as a module. Is there > > any way to push this forward? > > I see ACKs for this patch, but in my git I also have: > > commit 360943a8d26265825025b88da32961bd9ad4f7c6 > pinctrl: baytrail: make it explicitly non-modular > > Acked by Mika.
Heh, yeah we even removed possibility to unbind the driver with that commit. Totally forgot that one. > So which one is it going to be? Good question. I'm fine with both but I would really like to get some confirmation that turning the driver to module actually does not break anything. I have one Minnowboard MAX here but it does not do any ACPI magic for GPIOs so testing on that one might not catch all possible issues. > If this should be applied, the previous patch from Paul Gortmaker > should be reverted first. Especially the runtime PM parts seem > important to get back. Runtime PM actually does not do anything - there is no way to power down the GPIO controller in Baytrail. > Then I want a patch reverting that and adding this tristate in one. I agree + really good explanation in the changelog why this was done.
