Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] hwmon: (max6639) Change from pdata to dt configuration

[Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@9elements.com>]

Hi Uwe,

On 17-11-2022 02:43 pm, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 02:10:45PM +0530, Naresh Solanki wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17-11-2022 01:15 pm, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 10:36:15PM +0100, Naresh Solanki wrote:
>>>> max6639_platform_data is not used by any in-kernel driver and does not
>>>> address the MAX6639 fans separately.
>>>> Move to device tree configuration with explicit properties to configure
>>>> each fan.
>>>>
>>>> Non-DT platform can still use this module with its default
>>>> configuration.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Marcello Sylvester Bauer <sylv@sylv.io>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Naresh Solanki <Naresh.Solanki@9elements.com>
>>>
>>> What changed here since v5? Please either add a changelog below the
>>> tripple-dash for a new revision, or make sure that all relevant people
>>> get the cover letter.
>>>
>>> It seems you didn't address my comments for v5 :-\
>> Not sure what I missed but did following changes:
>> Removed unused header max6639.h
>> Used dev_err_probe instead,
>> Removed of_pwm_n_cells,
>> if condition for freq_table
>> removed pwm_get_state & instead use pwm->state
>> division/multiplication optimizations,
>> indentation of freq_table,
> 
> In the cover letter you just wrote:
> 
> | Changes in V6:
> | - Remove unused header file
> | - minor cleanup
> 
> which is too short in my eyes. If you wrote instead:
> 
> 	Address review feedback by Uwe Kleine-König in patch #3, patches #1 and
> 	#2 unchanged.
> 
> This would be much more helpful as people that were already happy with
> v5 wouldn't need to look at the first two patches and I would know that
> you addressed my feedback and would have looked in more detail.
Sure will keep it this way next time.
> 
> What I miss is the most critical part of my feedback, i.e.:
> | My overall impression is that this patch mixes too much things. IMHO it
> | should be split in (at least)
> |
> |  - Add dt support
> |  - Drop platform support
> |  - Add PWM provider support
> |  - Make use of the PWM API
> |
> | maybe also add the 2nd PWM in a separate step.
Sure can do that.
> 
> Best regards
> Uwe
> 
Thanks,
Naresh