lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [lm-sensors] [RFC PATCH] hwmon: (max6650) Convert to be a platform driver
    > >>> > -static int max6650_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
    > >>> > - const struct i2c_device_id *id);
    > >>> > -static int max6650_init_client(struct i2c_client *client);
    > >>> > -static int max6650_remove(struct i2c_client *client);
    > >>> > +static int max6650_probe(struct platform_device *pdev);
    > >>> > +static int max6650_init_client(struct platform_device *pdev);
    > >>> > +static int max6650_remove(struct platform_device *pdev);
    > >>> > static struct max6650_data *max6650_update_device(struct device *dev);
    > >>>
    > >>> It would be good to remove these forward declarations in the future.
    > >>>
    > >>> If no one volunteers I'll happily do it.
    > >>
    > >> Guenter just did:
    > >>
    > >> http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2014-February/041224.html
    > >>
    > >> Any change to the max6650 driver should go on top of his patch series
    > >> to avoid conflicts:
    > >>
    > >> http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2014-February/041223.html
    > >
    > As far as I can see, that patch set was not even tested, so how can it
    > go in? I was told that any patch should be _runtime_ tested, too.
    > Fwiw, I do not have time to test those personally, he would need to
    > find someone else if that requirement really holds true.
    >
    > I would not really like to fix bugs appearing in that code to get my
    > features in.
    >
    > Also, since my change has been around for 2-3 months now, I would
    > really prefer not to be forced to rewrite it again from scratch.
    > Surely, you can wait with those, more or less, cosmetic non-runtime
    > tested changes?
    >
    > This would impose me a lot of additional work again, and I personally
    > do not see the benefit of it. In my book at least, feature is over
    > internal polishing.

    Right, I've had enough. I'm removing your patch from the MFD tree.

    I've asked too many people to give you a second chance and asked you
    privately to behave yourself and treat others with respect. So far I
    haven't seen an ounce of self control or depomacy from you.

    This is how it's going to work from now on:

    - You submit a patch
    - It gets reviewed <----\
    - You fix up the review comments as requested -----/
    - Non-compliance or arguments with the _experts_ results in:
    `$INTEREST > /dev/null || \
    grep "From: Laszio Papp" ~/.mail | xargs rm -rf`

    --
    Lee Jones
    Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
    Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
    Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-02-13 13:21    [W:4.339 / U:0.540 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site