Date:   Fri, 31 May 2019 21:44:25 +0200
From:   Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        broonie@...nel.org, lgirdwood@...il.com,
        linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 6/6] leds: lm36274: Introduce the TI LM36274 LED
 driver

On 5/31/19 8:23 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2019, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> 
>> On 5/30/19 9:38 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 May 2019, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/29/19 3:58 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 24 May 2019, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/23/19 9:09 PM, Dan Murphy wrote:
>>>>>>> Pavel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the review
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/23/19 7:50 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-lm36274.c
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +static int lm36274_parse_dt(struct lm36274 *lm36274_data)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> +	struct fwnode_handle *child = NULL;
>>>>>>>>> +	char label[LED_MAX_NAME_SIZE];
>>>>>>>>> +	struct device *dev = &lm36274_data->pdev->dev;
>>>>>>>>> +	const char *name;
>>>>>>>>> +	int child_cnt;
>>>>>>>>> +	int ret = -EINVAL;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +	/* There should only be 1 node */
>>>>>>>>> +	child_cnt = device_get_child_node_count(dev);
>>>>>>>>> +	if (child_cnt != 1)
>>>>>>>>> +		return ret;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd do explicit "return -EINVAL" here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ACK
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +static int lm36274_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> +	struct ti_lmu *lmu = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
>>>>>>>>> +	struct lm36274 *lm36274_data;
>>>>>>>>> +	int ret;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +	lm36274_data = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*lm36274_data),
>>>>>>>>> +				    GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>>>>> +	if (!lm36274_data) {
>>>>>>>>> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>>>>>>> +		return ret;
>>>>>>>>> +	}
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And certainly do "return -ENOMEM" explicitly here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ACK
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Acked-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've done all amendments requested by Pavel and updated branch
>>>>>> ib-leds-mfd-regulator on linux-leds.git, but in the same time
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean by updated?  You cannot update an 'ib' (immutable
>>>>> branch).  Immutable means that it cannot change, by definition.
>>>>
>>>> We have already talked about that. Nobody has pulled so the branch
>>>> could have been safely updated.
>>>
>>> You have no sure way to know that.  And since I have no way to know,
>>> or faith that you won't update it again, pulling it now/at all would
>>> seem like a foolish thing to do.
>>
>> Sorry, but you are simply unjust. You're pretending to portray the
>> situation as if I have been notoriously causing merge conflicts in
>> linux-next which did not take place.
>>
>> Just to recap what this discussion is about:
>>
>> On 7 Apr 2019:
>>
>> 1. I sent pull request [0].
>> 2. 45 minutes later I updated it after discovering one omission [1].
>>     It was rather small chance for it to be pulled as quickly as that.
>>     And even if it happened it wouldn't have been much harmful - we
>>     wouldn't have lost e.g. weeks of testing in linux-next due to that
>>     fact.
>>
>> On 21 May 2019:
>>
>> 3. I sent another pull request [2] to you and REGULATOR maintainers.
>>     After it turned out that lack of feedback from REGULATOR maintainers
>>     was caused by failing to send them the exact copies of patches to
>>     review, I informed you about possible need for updating the branch.
>>     Afterwards I received a reply from you saying that you hadn't pulled
>>     the branch anyway. At that point I was sure that neither MFD nor
>>     REGULATOR tree contains the patches. And only after that I updated
>>     the branch.
> 
> Here are 2 examples where you have changed immutable branches, which
> is 100% of the Pull Requests I have received from you.  Using that
> record as a benchmark, the situation hardly seems unjust.
> 
>>> Until you can provide me with an assurance that you will not keep
>>> updating/changing the supposedly immutable pull-requests you send out,
>>> I won't be pulling any more in.
>>
>> I can just uphold the assurance which is implicitly assumed for anyone
>> who has never broken acclaimed rules. As justified above.
> 
> You have broken the rules every (100% of the) time.

Yes, I admit, I would lose in court.

>> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1059075/
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1059080/
>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1077066/
> 
> So we have 2 choices moving forward; you can either provide me with
> assurance that you have learned from this experience and will never
> change an *immutable* branch again, or I can continue to handle them,
> which has been the preference for some years.
> 
> If you choose the former and adaptions need to be made in the future,
> the correct thing to do is create a *new*, different pull-request
> which has its own *new*, different tag, but uses the original tag as a
> base.

I choose the former. That being said:

Hereby I solemnly declare never ever change an immutable branch again.

-- 
Best regards,
Jacek Anaszewski

Powered by blists - more mailing lists