[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [lm-sensors] [RFC PATCH] hwmon: (max6650) Convert to be a platform driver
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Lee Jones <> wrote:
>> >>> > -static int max6650_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>> >>> > - const struct i2c_device_id *id);
>> >>> > -static int max6650_init_client(struct i2c_client *client);
>> >>> > -static int max6650_remove(struct i2c_client *client);
>> >>> > +static int max6650_probe(struct platform_device *pdev);
>> >>> > +static int max6650_init_client(struct platform_device *pdev);
>> >>> > +static int max6650_remove(struct platform_device *pdev);
>> >>> > static struct max6650_data *max6650_update_device(struct device *dev);
>> >>>
>> >>> It would be good to remove these forward declarations in the future.
>> >>>
>> >>> If no one volunteers I'll happily do it.
>> >>
>> >> Guenter just did:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Any change to the max6650 driver should go on top of his patch series
>> >> to avoid conflicts:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> As far as I can see, that patch set was not even tested, so how can it
>> go in? I was told that any patch should be _runtime_ tested, too.
>> Fwiw, I do not have time to test those personally, he would need to
>> find someone else if that requirement really holds true.
>> I would not really like to fix bugs appearing in that code to get my
>> features in.
>> Also, since my change has been around for 2-3 months now, I would
>> really prefer not to be forced to rewrite it again from scratch.
>> Surely, you can wait with those, more or less, cosmetic non-runtime
>> tested changes?
>> This would impose me a lot of additional work again, and I personally
>> do not see the benefit of it. In my book at least, feature is over
>> internal polishing.
> Right, I've had enough. I'm removing your patch from the MFD tree.
> I've asked too many people to give you a second chance and asked you
> privately to behave yourself and treat others with respect. So far I
> haven't seen an ounce of self control or depomacy from you.
> This is how it's going to work from now on:
> - You submit a patch
> - It gets reviewed <----\
> - You fix up the review comments as requested -----/
> - Non-compliance or arguments with the _experts_ results in:
> `$INTEREST > /dev/null || \
> grep "From: Laszio Papp" ~/.mail | xargs rm -rf`

Step 2 did not happen. I did not get any review for my change. I
literally submitted that within a couple of hours after the request.

Could you please tell me what was wrong with that change, and why I
did not get any respect not to "xargs rm -rf" my work in that area? I
believe I was ignored instead of improving the change, and someone
else tried to address the same thing. There was no argument in that
thread. It was a technical change. I personally do not feel happy
about it.

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-13 14:01    [W:0.101 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site