From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robert.jarzmik@free.fr (Robert Jarzmik) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 00:12:27 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v4 1/2] serial: rewrite pxa2xx-uart to use 8250_core In-Reply-To: <1450555955.15911.14.camel@gmail.com> (Sergei Ianovich's message of "Sat, 19 Dec 2015 23:12:35 +0300") References: <1387309071-22382-1-git-send-email-ynvich@gmail.com> <1449700088-28076-1-git-send-email-ynvich@gmail.com> <1449700088-28076-2-git-send-email-ynvich@gmail.com> <8737uyhaji.fsf@belgarion.home> <87y4cqfu2j.fsf@belgarion.home> <1450550792.15911.5.camel@gmail.com> <87twnefd67.fsf@belgarion.home> <1450555955.15911.14.camel@gmail.com> Message-ID: <87poy2f2xw.fsf@belgarion.home> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Sergei Ianovich writes: > On Sat, 2015-12-19 at 20:31 +0100, Robert Jarzmik wrote: >> Sergei Ianovich writes: >> Thanks for spotting this. This is caused by a change in the latest >> > version of the patch (SERIAL_8250_PXA instead of SERIAL_PXA). This >> > change could be reverted. >> Actually I'm against the revert. >> The name change looks very good to me, please keep it. > > Is it worth adding an error if CONFIG_SERIAL_PXA is defined? I don't think so. > Or is there any other way of preventing this patch launching Linus' "flag > days" as Russel King named it? I must think about it, and test a bit more. Ah and a small hint : if you include back Russell in the conversation, don't forget the double "ll" if you wish him to answer. > I understand that people are afraid of taking this patch. If it starts > causing troubles at runtime, it will be difficult to diagnose. There > will be no console for most people. So it is probably good idea to fail > at boot time. Who are "the people" ? If it's about something already written in a mailing list, please point me to it so that it can help me think about it. >> > > But that can be handled in an subsequent patch to keep your acks >> > > and >> > > reviews. >> > I will respin the patch. Please comment on the acks and reviews. >> > They >> > were made at an earlier version of the patch. That version no longer >> > applies. Can the updated version carry on the flags? >> I don't get you. If you mean keeping CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_PXA, then yes, >> please >> keep it. > > I mean should the patch be re-revied and re-acked? Well it depends on what was since then. If it's a trivial commit message fix or a typo, I don't think it's necessary. If it's the algorithm, the code logic, or even I think you should ask again. For a name change in CONFIG_SERIAL_PXA into CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_PXA (change from v3 to v4), I must admit I don't know. Maybe Kevin or Arnd might give a clue. Cheers. -- Robert