[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221117091324.h7etwyzckzvpoa4p@pengutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:13:24 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@...ements.com>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph@...ements.com>,
Marcello Sylvester Bauer <sylv@...v.io>,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] hwmon: (max6639) Change from pdata to dt
configuration
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 02:10:45PM +0530, Naresh Solanki wrote:
>
>
> On 17-11-2022 01:15 pm, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 10:36:15PM +0100, Naresh Solanki wrote:
> > > max6639_platform_data is not used by any in-kernel driver and does not
> > > address the MAX6639 fans separately.
> > > Move to device tree configuration with explicit properties to configure
> > > each fan.
> > >
> > > Non-DT platform can still use this module with its default
> > > configuration.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Marcello Sylvester Bauer <sylv@...v.io>
> > > Signed-off-by: Naresh Solanki <Naresh.Solanki@...ements.com>
> >
> > What changed here since v5? Please either add a changelog below the
> > tripple-dash for a new revision, or make sure that all relevant people
> > get the cover letter.
> >
> > It seems you didn't address my comments for v5 :-\
> Not sure what I missed but did following changes:
> Removed unused header max6639.h
> Used dev_err_probe instead,
> Removed of_pwm_n_cells,
> if condition for freq_table
> removed pwm_get_state & instead use pwm->state
> division/multiplication optimizations,
> indentation of freq_table,
In the cover letter you just wrote:
| Changes in V6:
| - Remove unused header file
| - minor cleanup
which is too short in my eyes. If you wrote instead:
Address review feedback by Uwe Kleine-König in patch #3, patches #1 and
#2 unchanged.
This would be much more helpful as people that were already happy with
v5 wouldn't need to look at the first two patches and I would know that
you addressed my feedback and would have looked in more detail.
What I miss is the most critical part of my feedback, i.e.:
| My overall impression is that this patch mixes too much things. IMHO it
| should be split in (at least)
|
| - Add dt support
| - Drop platform support
| - Add PWM provider support
| - Make use of the PWM API
|
| maybe also add the 2nd PWM in a separate step.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists