Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 13 Feb 2014 08:16:47 -0800 | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Subject | Re: [lm-sensors] [RFC PATCH] hwmon: (max6650) Convert to be a platform driver |
| |
On 02/13/2014 04:27 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> 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: >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2014-February/041224.html >>>>> >>>>> Any change to the max6650 driver should go on top of his patch series >>>>> to avoid conflicts: >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2014-February/041223.html >>>> >>> 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` > > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1645251 > > 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. >
If you had tested your patch on real or simulated hardware, you might have noticed a crash whenever you accessed any of the attributes. So you did not test your patch.
Instead of trying to educate you how the conversion to the new API works, I decided to help you out a bit and do the conversion myself. I did some cleanup before, since that made the actual feature patch easier for me to implement, and I did some more cleanup afterwards just because I like cleaning up code.
I had hoped that you might find the time to test the result, but it appears that won't happen. I am gracious to Jean that he took the time to review the changes and even test the result in simulation, even though I know he is very busy. So I consider the changes to be good enough to be made available in my -staging tree, which I did by now. I'll move them over to -next once I have the chance to test on real hardware or after I get a Tested-by: from someone with real hardware.
Guenter
|  |