linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] i2c: loongson: add bus driver for the loongson i2c controller

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: <Y3X1Dppjg/yGgLSS@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:47:10 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, Yinbo Zhu <zhuyinbo@...ngson.cn>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>,
        William Zhang <william.zhang@...adcom.com>,
        Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
        Jan Dabros <jsd@...ihalf.com>,
        Tharun Kumar P <tharunkumar.pasumarthi@...rochip.com>,
        Phil Edworthy <phil.edworthy@...esas.com>,
        Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>,
        Tyrone Ting <kfting@...oton.com>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] i2c: loongson: add bus driver for the loongson
 i2c controller

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 09:35:31AM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
> > Can you split slave part as a separate change? It will help to review and
> > to understand the code better in the future by browsing the history.
> 
> Thanks for all your reviewing help, Andy! Regarding this comment, I
> don't think a split is needed. The driver is small enough with ~500
> lines, so I think it can stay this way. It would be different if the
> driver was 1000+ lines, then I'd totally agree. I will have a look at
> this driver soon.

Depends on the ratio "Comments per LoC" by the certain reviewer.

My experience with the other drivers for this architecture / platform that they
all need much more work before accepting them. And to reduce burden split would
be good.

But then it's up to you (to me it's a burden for even these 500 LoCs,
that are full of room to improvement).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko