Re: [RESEND PATCH v7 1/1] platform: Add driver for RAVE Supervisory Processor

[Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:40:38AM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:30:54AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> > >  drivers/platform/Kconfig        |   2 +
> >> > >  drivers/platform/Makefile       |   1 +
> >> > >  drivers/platform/rave/Kconfig   |  26 ++
> >> > >  drivers/platform/rave/Makefile  |   1 +
> >> > >  drivers/platform/rave/rave-sp.c | 677 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >
> >> > First of all, why do these live in drivers/platform and why don't use
> >> > the mfd subsystem to implement this driver (instead of rolling your own
> >> > mfd-implementation)?
> >>
> >> Sending contributors around like this is quite uncool.
> >
> > Asking questions when things are done in unexpected ways is part of the
> > review process, and the backstory here wasn't documented in the patch or
> > cover letter.
> 
> Cover letter for this submission contains the link to v1 of the
> patchset (marked as "[v1]"):
> 
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=149970632624803&w=2
> 
> whose cover letter captures why the driver was added to
> "drivers/platform" to a degree and contains a link to original
> submission:

You cannot expect a reviewer to go through seven revisions of a patch
series to find this information.

> Granted it is not completely effortless to get to all of that, but I
> don't think it is fair to say that all of that was not documented.

I said it "wasn't documented in the patch or cover letter", which I
still claim to be an accurate description.

You did something odd, I called it out, and now the issue is resolved.
Let's move on.

Johan