From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Murphy Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 6/6] leds: lm36274: Introduce the TI LM36274 LED driver Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 17:41:01 -0500 Message-ID: <37baf1d4-388f-e87d-df42-9d2713f4b799@ti.com> References: <20190522192733.13422-1-dmurphy@ti.com> <20190522192733.13422-7-dmurphy@ti.com> <20190523125012.GB20354@amd> <0c2bd6af-92c5-2458-dc41-1ea413545347@ti.com> <89a80aa8-66ee-d0ec-fa54-c55ca8de06af@gmail.com> <20190529135821.GK4574@dell> <20190530073827.GL4574@dell> <20190531062312.GP4574@dell> <8b4cfc12-284d-6daf-c82d-4c8e487cc203@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jacek Anaszewski , Lee Jones Cc: Pavel Machek , broonie@kernel.org, lgirdwood@gmail.com, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-leds@vger.kernel.org Jacek On 5/31/19 4:57 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: > Dan, > > On 5/31/19 11:07 PM, Dan Murphy wrote: >> Hello >> >> On 5/31/19 2:44 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: >>> On 5/31/19 8:23 AM, Lee Jones wrote: >>>> On Thu, 30 May 2019, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 5/30/19 9:38 AM, Lee Jones wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 29 May 2019, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/29/19 3:58 PM, Lee Jones wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 May 2019, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/23/19 9:09 PM, Dan Murphy wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Pavel >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the review >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/19 7:50 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-lm36274.c >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> +static int lm36274_parse_dt(struct lm36274 *lm36274_data) >>>>>>>>>>>> +{ >>>>>>>>>>>> +    struct fwnode_handle *child = NULL; >>>>>>>>>>>> +    char label[LED_MAX_NAME_SIZE]; >>>>>>>>>>>> +    struct device *dev = &lm36274_data->pdev->dev; >>>>>>>>>>>> +    const char *name; >>>>>>>>>>>> +    int child_cnt; >>>>>>>>>>>> +    int ret = -EINVAL; >>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>> +    /* There should only be 1 node */ >>>>>>>>>>>> +    child_cnt = device_get_child_node_count(dev); >>>>>>>>>>>> +    if (child_cnt != 1) >>>>>>>>>>>> +        return ret; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'd do explicit "return -EINVAL" here. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ACK >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> +static int lm36274_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>>>>>>>>>> +{ >>>>>>>>>>>> +    struct ti_lmu *lmu = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent); >>>>>>>>>>>> +    struct lm36274 *lm36274_data; >>>>>>>>>>>> +    int ret; >>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>> +    lm36274_data = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, >>>>>>>>>>>> sizeof(*lm36274_data), >>>>>>>>>>>> +                    GFP_KERNEL); >>>>>>>>>>>> +    if (!lm36274_data) { >>>>>>>>>>>> +        ret = -ENOMEM; >>>>>>>>>>>> +        return ret; >>>>>>>>>>>> +    } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And certainly do "return -ENOMEM" explicitly here. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ACK >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Acked-by: Pavel Machek >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've done all amendments requested by Pavel and updated branch >>>>>>>>> ib-leds-mfd-regulator on linux-leds.git, but in the same time >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What do you mean by updated?  You cannot update an 'ib' (immutable >>>>>>>> branch).  Immutable means that it cannot change, by definition. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have already talked about that. Nobody has pulled so the branch >>>>>>> could have been safely updated. >>>>>> >>>>>> You have no sure way to know that.  And since I have no way to know, >>>>>> or faith that you won't update it again, pulling it now/at all would >>>>>> seem like a foolish thing to do. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, but you are simply unjust. You're pretending to portray the >>>>> situation as if I have been notoriously causing merge conflicts in >>>>> linux-next which did not take place. >>>>> >>>>> Just to recap what this discussion is about: >>>>> >>>>> On 7 Apr 2019: >>>>> >>>>> 1. I sent pull request [0]. >>>>> 2. 45 minutes later I updated it after discovering one omission [1]. >>>>>     It was rather small chance for it to be pulled as quickly as >>>>> that. >>>>>     And even if it happened it wouldn't have been much harmful - we >>>>>     wouldn't have lost e.g. weeks of testing in linux-next due to >>>>> that >>>>>     fact. >>>>> >>>>> On 21 May 2019: >>>>> >>>>> 3. I sent another pull request [2] to you and REGULATOR maintainers. >>>>>     After it turned out that lack of feedback from REGULATOR >>>>> maintainers >>>>>     was caused by failing to send them the exact copies of patches to >>>>>     review, I informed you about possible need for updating the >>>>> branch. >>>>>     Afterwards I received a reply from you saying that you hadn't >>>>> pulled >>>>>     the branch anyway. At that point I was sure that neither MFD nor >>>>>     REGULATOR tree contains the patches. And only after that I >>>>> updated >>>>>     the branch. >>>> >>>> Here are 2 examples where you have changed immutable branches, which >>>> is 100% of the Pull Requests I have received from you. Using that >>>> record as a benchmark, the situation hardly seems unjust. >>>> >>>>>> Until you can provide me with an assurance that you will not keep >>>>>> updating/changing the supposedly immutable pull-requests you send >>>>>> out, >>>>>> I won't be pulling any more in. >>>>> >>>>> I can just uphold the assurance which is implicitly assumed for >>>>> anyone >>>>> who has never broken acclaimed rules. As justified above. >>>> >>>> You have broken the rules every (100% of the) time. >>> >>> Yes, I admit, I would lose in court. >>> >>>>> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1059075/ >>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1059080/ >>>>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1077066/ >>>> >>>> So we have 2 choices moving forward; you can either provide me with >>>> assurance that you have learned from this experience and will never >>>> change an *immutable* branch again, or I can continue to handle them, >>>> which has been the preference for some years. >>>> >>>> If you choose the former and adaptions need to be made in the future, >>>> the correct thing to do is create a *new*, different pull-request >>>> which has its own *new*, different tag, but uses the original tag as a >>>> base. >>> >>> I choose the former. That being said: >>> >>> Hereby I solemnly declare never ever change an immutable branch again. >>> >> So how do I proceed with the requested change by Mark B on the >> LM36274 driver. >> >> Do I add a patch on top? >> >> Or do I submit a patch to the regulator tree once the PR is pulled? > > Won't the change be a dependency for [PATCH v4 1/6] ? > Yes thats why I am asking as we would need to change the branch. Dan > In each case, having all the commits in one set (and branch) should > simplify the integration. >