[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfEksu-yG=6cFpDNLYzsg98KJ2Jf_G8zYiQvQch9yeMzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 20:00:22 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Potin Lai <potin.lai.pt@...il.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Patrick Williams <patrick@...cx.xyz>,
Potin Lai <potin.lai@...ntatw.com>,
linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] iio: humidity: hdc100x: switch to probe_new callback
On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 2:45 AM Potin Lai <potin.lai.pt@...il.com> wrote:
> On 7/29/22 04:41, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 3:32 PM Potin Lai <potin.lai.pt@...il.com> wrote:
> >> Switch to probe_new callback due to probe is deprecated soon.
> > Just noticed that commit message is a bit not okay in a few ways:
> > 1) we refer to the callbacks like ->probe_new();
> > 2) we don't know when we deprecate it, the point here is not that, but
> > unused id parameter in the current code.
^^^ read this again and follow below.
> Thanks for point it out, is it OK leave the message as it is? or you prefer to submit another version to fix it?
> If new version required, I will also add another patch for struct device pointer you mentioned in the other reply.
>
> Just want to confirm that is the new message looks OK?
> New message:
> Switch ->porbe() to new callback ->probe_new()
You need to answer the question "why?" you are doing this and that.
The above is just saying "what?". See above.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists