[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <e67f4e91-56dd-471a-b2c6-46161c38883f@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 09:01:07 +1300
From: "Luke Jones" <luke@...nes.dev>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Hans de Goede" <hdegoede@...hat.com>, corentin.chary@...il.com,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] platform/x86: asus-wmi: add support variant of TUF RGB
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, at 12:36 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024, Luke D. Jones wrote:
>
> > Adds support for a second TUF RGB wmi call that some versions of the TUF
> > laptop come with. Also adjusts existing support to select whichever is
> > available.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Luke D. Jones <luke@...nes.dev>
> > ---
> > drivers/platform/x86/asus-wmi.c | 13 +++++++++++--
> > include/linux/platform_data/x86/asus-wmi.h | 1 +
> > 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/asus-wmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/asus-wmi.c
> > index b9a2fb8007c0..0d8a2b82cc06 100644
> > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/asus-wmi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/asus-wmi.c
>
> > @@ -4544,6 +4545,14 @@ static int asus_wmi_add(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > asus->gpu_mux_dev = ASUS_WMI_DEVID_GPU_MUX_VIVO;
> > }
> >
> > + if (asus_wmi_dev_is_present(asus, ASUS_WMI_DEVID_TUF_RGB_MODE)) {
>
> The patch itself is fine,
>
> Reviewed-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
>
> However,
>
> There's a major problem in the way you're submitting these. This patch is
> built on top of the GPU_MUX_VIVO patch as can be seen from the context
> above. Yet, you're sending these independently instead of series. I
> suspect there are other similar problems among these patches that there's
> hidden dependency order in which these should be applied. This will cause
> problems if maintainer applies the patches in wrong order (they may even
> misapply with fuzz).
>
> Only if the patches are truly independent, that is, focus on solving
> entirely differently thing (functional independency) and do not have any
> linewise conflicts (code locality independecy) either, it's fine to send
> patches as independent ones without making a series out of them. But
> clearly it's not the case here.
Honestly, yeah I should have made them a series. I was sick at the time of submission and shouldn't have been near a computer at all but I have a long backlog.
I'll go through your other reviews and then turn the lot in as a series to prevent any mishaps.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists