Date:	Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:33:29 +0000
From:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>
Cc:	Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@....com>,
	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Matt Porter <matt.porter@...aro.org>,
	Koen Kooi <koen@...inion.thruhere.net>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Alison Chaiken <Alison_Chaiken@...tor.com>,
	Dinh Nguyen <dinh.linux@...il.com>,
	Jan Lubbe <jluebbe@...net.de>, Michael Stickel <ms@...able.de>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@...il.com>,
	Alan Tull <delicious.quinoa@...il.com>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Michael Bohan <mbohan@...eaurora.org>,
	Ionut Nicu <ioan.nicu.ext@....com>,
	Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
	Matt Ranostay <mranostay@...il.com>,
	Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pete Popov <pete.popov@...sulko.com>,
	Dan Malek <dan.malek@...sulko.com>,
	Georgi Vlaev <georgi.vlaev@...sulko.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: spi: Export single device registration method
 and accessors (v2)

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 12:22:04 +0000
, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
 wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 01:48:06PM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> > > On Oct 29, 2014, at 12:14 , Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > > This feels like there is an abstraction problem somewhere, whatever code
> > > is supposed to use this is going to need to be taught about each
> > > individual bus which is going to be tedious, I would expect that we'd
> > > have something like the bus being able to provide a callback which will
> > > get invoked whenever a new node appears on the parent node for the bus.
> 
> > There’s a whole patchset that does exactly this. 
> > Look at "OF: spi: Add OF notifier handler” and you’ll where this is used.
> 
> I deleted that unread I'm afraid; one of the reasons that you should use
> subject lines matching the styles for the subsystems is that it's one of
> the things people use to filter out things that actually need attention,
> if things are busy things that at first glance don't look terribly
> relevant (like changes to the OF core in this case) are likely to get
> looked at less urgently or just skipped.
> 
> A quick glance suggests that this is adding code inside the SPI core so
> it's still not explaining why anything is being exported, can you
> clarify please?

I have the same question. This doesn't look like it should be exporting
symbols.

Also, the way the patch is written causes a lot of code changes to get
interleaved in the diff. It would be better to split into two patches;
one that creates the new of_register_spi_device(), and a separate patch
to add the other new functions. It would be certainly easier to review
that way.

> 
> > > SubmittingPatches says.  Please also try to keep your CC list sane,
> > > CCing random people just means that you're increasing the volume of mail
> > > they have to process.  I'm surprised kernel.org accepts so many CCs.
> 
> > > I have to say I don't recall ever seeing v1...
> 
> > All of them are in the CC list for a reason. 
> 
> This is a single, standalone SPI patch - you didn't send it as part of a
> series (which is the only reason I read it).

Yes, this is part of the OF overlay series. It should have at least been
marked as [PATCH 7/8] and that it replaced the previous, buggy, patch 7.

g.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists