[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 02/13/2014 04:27 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> 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.

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.


 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-13 18:21    [W:0.156 / U:0.972 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site