[PATCHv1] ARM: imx: Add support for low power suspend on MX51.

[u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe Kleine-König)]

Guten Morgen Thomas,

On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 12:51:32AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Uwe,
> 
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2011, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 11:17:58AM -0600, Dinh.Nguyen at freescale.com wrote:
> > > From: Dinh Nguyen <Dinh.Nguyen@freescale.com>
> 
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-mx5/pm.c
> > I'd like to have that called pm-imx51.c
> 
> And I'd like to have a pony.
http://www.carl-russ-schule.de/files/Pony.jpg

> 
> > > +		ccm_clpcr |= (0x3 << MXC_CCM_CLPCR_STBY_COUNT_OFFSET);
> > the parentheses aren't needed here
> 
> Could you finally provide a patch to checkpatch.pl or git commit which
> resolves that issue once and forever ?
> 
> Not to mention the fact, that those parentheses are not disturbing the
> readability of that code at all.
So it seems we're different.

> 
> > > +		ccm_clpcr |= (0x1 << MXC_CCM_CLPCR_LPM_OFFSET);
> > ditto
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> > > +static int __init mx5_pm_init(void)
> > I'd prefer to have that called by imx51_init_early.
> 
> And the reason is? 
> 
>     1) your personal preference
>     2) there is some useful technical reason
> 
> If #1, then this comment was just waste of electrons
> If #2, you failed to provide some reasonable explanation
Actually it's #2, and to quote a different review[1]:

	Reviewers hint to a correct solution and you are supposed to
	lookup what that solution means and act accordingly. If you do
	not understand the hint or its implications please ask [...]

> Again, I'd like to have a pony.
http://h-6.abload.de/img/pony01_pixelquelle_dal8701.jpg

> Seriously, while all of us admire your invaluable skills of running
> scripts over patches and kernel code, that kind of review you are
> trying to provide is utterly useless.
actually it's not a script, but I guess that doesn't matter much.

> 1) The patch itself has been questioned about its correctness hours
>    before you added the output of your secret script. It was already
>    reported to be non functional. So what's the value of adding
>    scriptable review to it?
It might save the patch sender from a third iteration.

> 2) As long as you do not see the most obvious functional problems with
>    a patch please spare your script computing power and the bandwidth
>    you are consuming by your futile attempts to gain a profile as a
>    patch reviewer.
The functionallity of the patch has been questioned before so I didn't
see a value in repeating that :-)  To be honest, I didn't check for
functional problems, but IMHO it's OK to provide feedback about a part
of the problems if you don't see all of them.

Best regards
Uwe

[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1107265

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K?nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |