[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251109000309.20cb44e8@kemnade.info>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2025 00:03:09 +0100
From: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] regulator: Add FP9931/JD9930 driver
On Sat, 8 Nov 2025 13:21:57 +0100
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
> > +static struct i2c_driver fp9931_i2c_driver = {
> > + .driver = {
> > + .name = "fp9931",
> > + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>
> Please do not send us 12 year old code... Drop and runstandard tools
> (smatch, sparse, cocci) at minimum.
Yes, .owner gets handled automatically. And it should be detected by cocci.
To me it sounds like you are saying I would dig out 12 year old code
somewhere and send it totally unmodernized and unchecked. As a
device tree maintainer, you must have seen that I am using the newer unified
device property API and also other newer stuff and e.g. no
pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(). So just to make it clear to other maintainers
what they are dealing with, most of the stuff is new.
Most.. So the only exception might be the i2c_driver struct which was
copied/modified from an out-of-tree jd9930 driver including that strange
night mode. But nothing more, the rest is a rewrite.
Regards,
Andreas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists