Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:02:01 -0500
From: Kyle Roeschley <kyle.roeschley@ni.com>
To: Josh Cartwright <joshc@ni.com>
CC: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, <arnd@arndb.de>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <jeff.westfahl@ni.com>,
        <nathan.sullivan@ni.com>, <xander.huff@ni.com>,
        <aaron.rossetto@ni.com>, <gratian.crisan@ni.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] misc: nirtfeatures: physical interface elements
Message-ID: <20160315160200.GB3216@senary>
References: <1457992508-18745-1-git-send-email-kyle.roeschley@ni.com>
 <20160315145327.GD27081@jcartwri.amer.corp.natinst.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160315145327.GD27081@jcartwri.amer.corp.natinst.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:23
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Mar 2016 16:01:48.6090 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM2PR0401MB0941
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1376
Lines: 39

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 09:53:27AM -0500, Josh Cartwright wrote:
> Hey Kyle-
> 
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 04:55:08PM -0500, Kyle Roeschley wrote:
> > From: Gratian Crisan <gratian.crisan@ni.com>
> 
> From what I understand, this was mostly Aaron's work, so he should get
> authorship.  I could be wrong, though, but you'll want to check.
> 

Correct, that was just 'git format-patch' grabbing the name of the final
committer on our internal repo. I'll clear that up.

> > These changes add support for PIEs (physical interface elements), which
> > are defined as physical elements fixed to a controller/chassis with
> > which a user can interact (e.g. LEDs and switches) and whose meaning
> > is user-defined and implementation-specific.
> [..]
> > ---
> >  drivers/misc/nirtfeatures.c | 753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 694 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-)
> 
> This patchset is awkwardly split up, especially because you are removing
> what you are adding in the first patch.  I would suggest coming up with
> a better patch breakdown that doesn't do this, to make it easier on
> reviewers.
> 
> Perhaps, breaking it up into a patchset where each patch implements a
> different class of functionality (leds, input).

Seems reasonable, I'll try to clean this up some.

> 
>   Josh

-- 
Kyle Roeschley
Software Engineer
National Instruments