Re: [PATCH 00/28] at24: remove at24_platform_data

Bartosz Golaszewski
2018-08-08T16:52:07Z

2018-08-08 18:44 GMT+02:00 Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 06:27:25PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> 2018-08-08 17:55 GMT+02:00 Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>:
>> > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 05:31:22PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> >> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
>> >>
>> >> This is a follow-up to the previously rejected series[1] which partially
>> >> removed the at24_platform_data structure. After further development and
>> >> taking reviews into account, this series finally removes that struct
>> >> completely but not without touching many different parts of the code
>> >> base.
>> >>
>> >> Since I took over maintainership of the at24 driver I've been working
>> >> towards removing at24_platform_data in favor for device properties.
>> >
>> > Wooha, nice work. I can't really comment on it but wondered how you want
>> > to upstream it (after reviews)? Pull request of an immutable branch for
>> > nvmem-tree sounds best to me. Then I could also pull it in if i2c needs
>> > it. Probably same situation for arm-soc...
>> >
>>
>> I initially wanted to merge small parts of it starting with v4.18, but
>> there were some voices against merging APIs without users. I'm not
>> sure how it should go in. There'll be a need for multiple immutable
>> branches most probably...
>
> Hi Bartosz
>
> What this series does is show all the different parts are now
> available, and can be reviewed as a whole. Once that review is
> completed, merging in parts then becomes possible.
>
> It looks like you could probably merge the nvmem, mtd and net parts
> independently via there maintainers for 4.20, since i don't think
> there are any dependencies. The arm-soc changes in 4.21, and the
> removal of the platform data in 4.22?
>
> Andrew

We need the first batch of SoC changes for the net part and then the
second batch depends on those net changes. Also: dragging the merge
for this over a year is a bit overkill.

Sekhar: I know you're usually provided with immutable branches from
framework maintainers for the SoC changes - is it ok for you to
provide the net maintainers with an immutable branch after applying
the first part of davinci board file changes?

Bart