Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-109375-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Feedback-ID: i5ec1447f:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-332-gdeb4194079-fm-20240319.002-gdeb41940
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <e67f4e91-56dd-471a-b2c6-46161c38883f@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5d5e8895-8843-a0bf-de97-b293528a0643@linux.intel.com>
References: <20240320011442.11608-1-luke@ljones.dev>
 <20240320011442.11608-2-luke@ljones.dev>
 <5d5e8895-8843-a0bf-de97-b293528a0643@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 09:01:07 +1300
From: "Luke Jones" <luke@ljones.dev>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ilpo_J=C3=A4rvinen?= <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Hans de Goede" <hdegoede@redhat.com>, corentin.chary@gmail.com,
 platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] platform/x86: asus-wmi: add support variant of TUF RGB
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, at 12:36 AM, Ilpo J=C3=A4rvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024, Luke D. Jones wrote:
>=20
> > Adds support for a second TUF RGB wmi call that some versions of the=
 TUF
> > laptop come with. Also adjusts existing support to select whichever =
is
> > available.
> >=20
> > Signed-off-by: Luke D. Jones <luke@ljones.dev>
> > ---
> >  drivers/platform/x86/asus-wmi.c            | 13 +++++++++++--
> >  include/linux/platform_data/x86/asus-wmi.h |  1 +
> >  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >=20
> > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/asus-wmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/=
asus-wmi.c
> > index b9a2fb8007c0..0d8a2b82cc06 100644
> > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/asus-wmi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/asus-wmi.c
>=20
> > @@ -4544,6 +4545,14 @@ static int asus_wmi_add(struct platform_devic=
e *pdev)
> >  asus->gpu_mux_dev =3D ASUS_WMI_DEVID_GPU_MUX_VIVO;
> >  }
> > =20
> > + if (asus_wmi_dev_is_present(asus, ASUS_WMI_DEVID_TUF_RGB_MODE)) {
>=20
> The patch itself is fine,
>=20
> Reviewed-by: Ilpo J=C3=A4rvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
>=20
> However,
>=20
> There's a major problem in the way you're submitting these. This patch=
 is=20
> built on top of the GPU_MUX_VIVO patch as can be seen from the context
> above. Yet, you're sending these independently instead of series. I=20
> suspect there are other similar problems among these patches that ther=
e's=20
> hidden dependency order in which these should be applied. This will ca=
use=20
> problems if maintainer applies the patches in wrong order (they may ev=
en=20
> misapply with fuzz).
>=20
> Only if the patches are truly independent, that is, focus on solving=20
> entirely differently thing (functional independency) and do not have a=
ny=20
> linewise conflicts (code locality independecy) either, it's fine to se=
nd=20
> patches as independent ones without making a series out of them. But=20
> clearly it's not the case here.

Honestly, yeah I should have made them a series. I was sick at the time =
of submission and shouldn't have been near a computer at all but I have =
a long backlog.

I'll go through your other reviews and then turn the lot in as a series =
to prevent any mishaps.