Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753898AbaBMLdV (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 06:33:21 -0500 Received: from mail-we0-f176.google.com ([74.125.82.176]:51882 "EHLO mail-we0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751854AbaBMLdT (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 06:33:19 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:33:13 +0000 From: Lee Jones To: Laszlo Papp Cc: Jean Delvare , LKML , lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [RFC PATCH] hwmon: (max6650) Convert to be a platform driver Message-ID: <20140213113313.GL32508@lee--X1> References: <1392281438-31836-1-git-send-email-lpapp@kde.org> <20140213095817.GD32508@lee--X1> <20140213111530.2a2b4982@endymion.delvare> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > >>> > -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/