From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from osg.samsung.com ([64.30.133.232]:56310 "EHLO osg.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965644AbeBPMEX (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2018 07:04:23 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:04:13 -0200 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: Sakari Ailus Cc: Hans Verkuil , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Sakari Ailus , Jacopo Mondi , Hans Verkuil Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 4/9] staging: atomisp: i2c: Disable non-preview configurations Message-ID: <20180216100413.06c8ab1c@vento.lan> In-Reply-To: <20180216101220.ncl7gda4xq2vzcqw@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk> References: <20180122123125.24709-1-hverkuil@xs4all.nl> <20180122123125.24709-5-hverkuil@xs4all.nl> <20180214142050.2ef515ee@vento.lan> <20180216101220.ncl7gda4xq2vzcqw@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Em Fri, 16 Feb 2018 12:12:20 +0200 Sakari Ailus escreveu: > Hi Mauro, > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 02:20:50PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Em Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:31:20 +0100 > > Hans Verkuil escreveu: > > > > > From: Sakari Ailus > > > > > > Disable configurations for non-preview modes until configuration selection > > > is improved. > > > > Again, a poor description. It just repeats the subject. > > A good subject/description should answer 3 questions: > > > > what? > > why? > > how? > > > > Anyway, looking at this patch's contents, it partially answers my > > questions: > > > > the previous patch do cause regressions at the code. > > > > Ok, this is staging. So, we don't have very strict rules here, > > but still causing regressions without providing a very good > > reason why sucks. > > > > I would also merge this with the previous one, in order to place all > > regressions on a single patch. > > It's trivial to bring back the configurations disabled here by just > reverting this patch. The other patch does not disable any. That's why > they're separate. Yes, and I'm not saying otherwise. The main issue here is that it lacks a description (as what's there is just a copy of the subject). Why is it needed to "disable non-preview configurations"? Also, as you're actually commenting the code with #if 0, I'm assuming that you're thinking on re-enable the code (or re-implement with a different logic) in the future. So, please add a note before the #if 0, as otherwise I'm pretty sure someone will end by sending us patches just stripping it. Regards, Mauro