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: [RESEND PATCH v4 6/6] leds: lm36274: Introduce the TI LM36274 LED
 driver
To:     Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@gmail.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
CC:     Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, <broonie@kernel.org>,
        <lgirdwood@gmail.com>, <linux-leds@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20190522192733.13422-1-dmurphy@ti.com>
 <20190522192733.13422-7-dmurphy@ti.com> <20190523125012.GB20354@amd>
 <0c2bd6af-92c5-2458-dc41-1ea413545347@ti.com>
 <89a80aa8-66ee-d0ec-fa54-c55ca8de06af@gmail.com> <20190529135821.GK4574@dell>
 <afff7c24-bb68-e9dc-295e-4449f9729cc9@gmail.com> <20190530073827.GL4574@dell>
 <c75025f5-a984-78fa-2737-d10027e5741c@gmail.com> <20190531062312.GP4574@dell>
 <8b4cfc12-284d-6daf-c82d-4c8e487cc203@gmail.com>
 <ec1066ec-c68b-c1ee-dd70-6be7f71924eb@ti.com>
 <c21fa7c4-3b3c-f35d-348c-311469496d9d@gmail.com>
From:   Dan Murphy <dmurphy@ti.com>
Message-ID: <37baf1d4-388f-e87d-df42-9d2713f4b799@ti.com>
Date:   Fri, 31 May 2019 17:41:01 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c21fa7c4-3b3c-f35d-348c-311469496d9d@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Jacek

On 5/31/19 4:57 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> Dan,
>
> On 5/31/19 11:07 PM, Dan Murphy wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> On 5/31/19 2:44 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>>> On 5/31/19 8:23 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 30 May 2019, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/30/19 9:38 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 May 2019, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/29/19 3:58 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 May 2019, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/19 9:09 PM, Dan Murphy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Pavel
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the review
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/19 7:50 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-lm36274.c
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +static int lm36274_parse_dt(struct lm36274 *lm36274_data)
>>>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    struct fwnode_handle *child = NULL;
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    char label[LED_MAX_NAME_SIZE];
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    struct device *dev = &lm36274_data->pdev->dev;
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    const char *name;
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    int child_cnt;
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    int ret = -EINVAL;
>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    /* There should only be 1 node */
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    child_cnt = device_get_child_node_count(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    if (child_cnt != 1)
>>>>>>>>>>>> +        return ret;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd do explicit "return -EINVAL" here.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ACK
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +static int lm36274_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    struct ti_lmu *lmu = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    struct lm36274 *lm36274_data;
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    int ret;
>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    lm36274_data = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> sizeof(*lm36274_data),
>>>>>>>>>>>> +                    GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    if (!lm36274_data) {
>>>>>>>>>>>> +        ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>>>>>>>>>> +        return ret;
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And certainly do "return -ENOMEM" explicitly here.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ACK
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Acked-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've done all amendments requested by Pavel and updated branch
>>>>>>>>> ib-leds-mfd-regulator on linux-leds.git, but in the same time
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you mean by updated?  You cannot update an 'ib' (immutable
>>>>>>>> branch).  Immutable means that it cannot change, by definition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have already talked about that. Nobody has pulled so the branch
>>>>>>> could have been safely updated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have no sure way to know that.  And since I have no way to know,
>>>>>> or faith that you won't update it again, pulling it now/at all would
>>>>>> seem like a foolish thing to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but you are simply unjust. You're pretending to portray the
>>>>> situation as if I have been notoriously causing merge conflicts in
>>>>> linux-next which did not take place.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just to recap what this discussion is about:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7 Apr 2019:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. I sent pull request [0].
>>>>> 2. 45 minutes later I updated it after discovering one omission [1].
>>>>>     It was rather small chance for it to be pulled as quickly as 
>>>>> that.
>>>>>     And even if it happened it wouldn't have been much harmful - we
>>>>>     wouldn't have lost e.g. weeks of testing in linux-next due to 
>>>>> that
>>>>>     fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 21 May 2019:
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. I sent another pull request [2] to you and REGULATOR maintainers.
>>>>>     After it turned out that lack of feedback from REGULATOR 
>>>>> maintainers
>>>>>     was caused by failing to send them the exact copies of patches to
>>>>>     review, I informed you about possible need for updating the 
>>>>> branch.
>>>>>     Afterwards I received a reply from you saying that you hadn't 
>>>>> pulled
>>>>>     the branch anyway. At that point I was sure that neither MFD nor
>>>>>     REGULATOR tree contains the patches. And only after that I 
>>>>> updated
>>>>>     the branch.
>>>>
>>>> Here are 2 examples where you have changed immutable branches, which
>>>> is 100% of the Pull Requests I have received from you. Using that
>>>> record as a benchmark, the situation hardly seems unjust.
>>>>
>>>>>> Until you can provide me with an assurance that you will not keep
>>>>>> updating/changing the supposedly immutable pull-requests you send 
>>>>>> out,
>>>>>> I won't be pulling any more in.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can just uphold the assurance which is implicitly assumed for 
>>>>> anyone
>>>>> who has never broken acclaimed rules. As justified above.
>>>>
>>>> You have broken the rules every (100% of the) time.
>>>
>>> Yes, I admit, I would lose in court.
>>>
>>>>> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1059075/
>>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1059080/
>>>>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1077066/
>>>>
>>>> So we have 2 choices moving forward; you can either provide me with
>>>> assurance that you have learned from this experience and will never
>>>> change an *immutable* branch again, or I can continue to handle them,
>>>> which has been the preference for some years.
>>>>
>>>> If you choose the former and adaptions need to be made in the future,
>>>> the correct thing to do is create a *new*, different pull-request
>>>> which has its own *new*, different tag, but uses the original tag as a
>>>> base.
>>>
>>> I choose the former. That being said:
>>>
>>> Hereby I solemnly declare never ever change an immutable branch again.
>>>
>> So how do I proceed with the requested change by Mark B on the 
>> LM36274 driver.
>>
>> Do I add a patch on top?
>>
>> Or do I submit a patch to the regulator tree once the PR is pulled?
>
> Won't the change be a dependency for [PATCH v4 1/6] ?
>
Yes thats why I am asking as we would need to change the branch.


Dan

> In each case, having all the commits in one set (and branch) should
> simplify the integration.
>