linux-kernel - Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon: (max6650) Rename the device ids to contain the hwmon suffix

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140210231031.GA5857@roeck-us.net>
Date:	Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:10:31 -0800
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Laszlo Papp <lpapp@....org>
Cc:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lm-sensors@...sensors.org
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon: (max6650) Rename the device ids to
 contain the hwmon suffix

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:59:55PM +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:53 PM,  <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> > Quoting Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>:
> >
> >>
> >> That being said, going with MFD in this case seems quite overkill to
> >> me. MFD makes a lot of sense when each function has its own resources.
> >> As this isn't the case here, a single driver registering both an hwmon
> >> interface and a pinctrl interface would seem sufficient to me. But I
> >> think Guenter already discussed this in the past so I'll let him
> >> continue and decide.
> >>
> >
> > That is what I had suggested as well (though we were talking gpio
> > at the time). Laszlo didn't want to do it this way for some reason.
> > Right now I don't really have an idea what to do.
> 
> Right now I do not really have an idea what the concern here is.
> 
> I will quote you:
> 
> "Please explain, for my education, what makes you believe that I would
> object to or reject to anyone submitting such a driver."
> 
> and then the next one in the thread:
> 
> "> > Works for me. Should I apply the gpio and mfd drivers separately or in
> > > one single patch?
> >
> > s/apply/send/
> >
> Separately."
> 
> This happened about two months ago, and after two months of man work,
> several reviews from various people, while you have been *explicitly*
> included in the threads, are claiming that it is unacceptable? Do you
> see how much time waste that would be for everyone who have been
> involved.
> 
> What I currently do not understand is the point for rejecting the
> contribution that does not have API drawback, etc, if you do not
> provide anything better. You are more than welcome to rewrite my work
> once the feature works, but I guess it is very likely that you would
> not do that.
> 
> So, let me ask it: shall we continue the bike-shedding after months,
> or there is a definite decision from the maintainers? Disagreement is
> not a problem because people can move on if the maintainers actually
> make it clear what is acceptable and what not, but here that did not
> really happen. We are where we were months ago.
> 

I think I'll let Jean handle this one.

Guenter
--
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/