On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 10:42:03PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> There is no use for whole 16-bit for the number of chip select pins.
> Drop it to 8 bits.
because...? It's the only field in the struct so it's not like it makes
any meaningful different to struct layout.
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 10:55:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 10:42:03PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > There is no use for whole 16-bit for the number of chip select pins.
> > Drop it to 8 bits.
>
> because...?
To make the type stricter, but since there is no other benefits and
this one likely won't help to catch the (incorrect) use of big numbers
I think we don't need it.
> It's the only field in the struct so it's not like it makes
> any meaningful different to struct layout.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 12:28:12PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 10:55:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 10:42:03PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > There is no use for whole 16-bit for the number of chip select pins.
> > > Drop it to 8 bits.
> >
> > because...?
>
> To make the type stricter, but since there is no other benefits and
> this one likely won't help to catch the (incorrect) use of big numbers
> I think we don't need it.
>
> > It's the only field in the struct so it's not like it makes
> > any meaningful different to struct layout.
Should I do something about the first two patches or is it fine to get them in?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 12:09:24AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Should I do something about the first two patches or is it fine to get them in?
Please don't send content free pings and please allow a reasonable time
for review. People get busy, go on holiday, attend conferences and so
on so unless there is some reason for urgency (like critical bug fixes)
please allow at least a couple of weeks for review. If there have been
review comments then people may be waiting for those to be addressed.
Sending content free pings adds to the mail volume (if they are seen at
all) which is often the problem and since they can't be reviewed
directly if something has gone wrong you'll have to resend the patches
anyway, so sending again is generally a better approach though there are
some other maintainers who like them - if in doubt look at how patches
for the subsystem are normally handled.
On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 10:22:44PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 12:09:24AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>
> > Should I do something about the first two patches or is it fine to get them in?
Found them, it's just an announce is missing.
Thanks!
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko