[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170127213422.GD24047@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:34:22 +0100
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>,
Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@...eaurora.org>,
Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@...aro.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...glemail.com>,
Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>,
Abhay_Salunke@...l.com, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
Gilles.Muller@...6.fr, nicolas.palix@...g.fr,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] p54: convert to sysdata API
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:53:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org> wrote:
> >> So I'm really not seeing why you want to make these conversions that
> >> just make code worse.
> >
> > The real goal here was first to actually provide a flexible API to enable
> > more advanced features to be added without having to affect existing
> > callers, as has been done before.
>
> So I've said this before, and I'll say this one more time:
>
> It's fine if we make the internal implementation of some generic "load
> data from the filesystem or user" be this kind of new flexible API
> that is internally called "driver_data_request()" or whatever.
>
> But dammit, that is NOT AN EXCUSE for then making crap patches that
> just replace the existing firmware users.
Works with me.
> If the new interface cannot be wrapped in the old names (and the old
> semantics) the new interface is shit and should never ever go
> anywhere.
There's a few questionable things part of the old API which (UMH lock is one
used even if no UMH is used, the fallback mechanism another) so I've taken out
what I can truly vouch for and its all being shared on the driver_data API.
Extending the old API with yet-more flags is a big concern on my part so will
also recommend new functionality to be focused on the newer API.
> So leave the existing users alone. Concentrate on _only_ the parts
> where there is actual and real need of new features. Don't try to
> rename or extend current drivers. Don't send out these patches that
> make drivers actively uglier. Really.
Right on.
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists