Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/16] nvmem: remove unused APIs
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>,
        David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, Alban Bedel <albeu@free.fr>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
        linux-doc <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
References: <20180907100750.14564-1-brgl@bgdev.pl>
 <20180907100750.14564-2-brgl@bgdev.pl>
 <c0b0c411-65f6-62f9-6d6d-2884e5a17250@linaro.org>
 <CAMRc=MfO01EQAfY4Uu3UwzzvhVOMF7_BpCOPVz2yVXqDgpb0AA@mail.gmail.com>
 <7e138142-8161-3646-4daf-619995baf395@linaro.org>
 <CAMRc=Mduu4CmLX5DFtJd8NSbzs5g65U9AmM=rbscit0JyQKVAQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <3dbd65e5-c948-a784-0362-930fc41b840e@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 10 Sep 2018 10:55:23 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMRc=Mduu4CmLX5DFtJd8NSbzs5g65U9AmM=rbscit0JyQKVAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 10/09/18 09:43, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> this series. Later patches are MUCH cleaner thanks to this removal and
>>> I believe it makes them easier for review.
>> Am not sure about that, it definitely did not help me!
>>
> Why exactly? Aren't clean patches resulting from this removal easier
> to read then if they'd also have to take into account the burden of
> existing code that will be changes anyway later? I really don't see
> why you insist on removing this.

Here are few reasons:

1> TBH, This cleanup patch removes more than one feature from nvmem 
subsystem.
Ex: it remove ability to add static cell from nvmem config, secondly it 
removed ability to read/write cells directly using nvmem_cell_info.

2> If you do changes as part of each patch, it will be much traceable on 
what is changed exactly and will allow much better review, and 
understand the reasoning.

Having a clean start and writing code on top of it is alway nice, but we 
will definitely miss things in review in this particular instance.


thanks,
srini

> 
> Best regards,
> Bart
>