Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] Support ROHM BU27034 ALS sensor

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On 3/22/23 12:34, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 11:05:23AM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

...

> > > > - copy code from DRM test helper instead of moving it to simplify
> > > >    merging
> > > 
> > > 1) Why do you think this is a problem?
> > > 2) How would we avoid spreading more copies of the same code in the future?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 1) Merge conflicts is not a bad thing. It shows that people tested their code
> > > in isolation and stabilized it before submitting to the upper maintainer.
> > > 
> > > https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/git_merges_from_upstream.html
> > > 
> > > 2) Spreading the same code when we _know_ this, should be very well justified.
> > > Merge conflict is an administrative point, and not a technical obstacle to
> > > avoid.
> 
> I definitely agree. This is also why I did the renaming and not copying in
> the first version. In this version I did still add the subsequent patch 2/8
> - which drops the duplicates from DRM tree.
> 
> > I believe this was suggested by Maxime and the rationale is that by just
> > copying the helpers for now, that would make it easier to land instead of
> > requiring coordination between different subystems.
> 
> This is correct.
> 
> > Otherwise the IIO tree will need to provide an inmutable branch for the
> > DRM tree to merge and so on.
> 
> Or, if we carry the patch 1/8 via self-test tree, then we get even more
> players here.
> 
> Still, I am not opposing immutable branch because that would allow fast
> applying of the patch 2/8 as well. Longer that is delayed, more likely we
> will see more users of the DRM helpers and harder it gets to remove the
> duplicates later.
> 
> > I agree with Maxime that a little bit of duplication (that can be cleaned
> > up by each subsystem at their own pace) is the path of least resistance.
> 
> I'd say this depends. It probably is the path of least resistance for people
> maintaining the trees. It can also be the path of least resistance in
> general - but it depends on if there will be no new users for those DRM
> helpers while waiting the new APIs being merged in DRM tree. More users we
> see in DRM, more effort the clean-up requires.
> 
> I have no strong opinion on this specific case. I'd just be happy to see the
> IIO tests getting in preferably sooner than later - although 'soon' and
> 'late' does also depend on other factors besides these helpers...

Since I'm not a maintainer of either, and one of them requires something,
I can't oppose.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko