From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752194AbcAFHz3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jan 2016 02:55:29 -0500 Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:47611 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751999AbcAFHzZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jan 2016 02:55:25 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/19] irqchip: atmel-aic: make unified AIC driver To: Nicolas Ferre References: <1451881723-2478-1-git-send-email-milo.kim@ti.com> <20160104100238.2b40f736@bbrezillon> <568A3D72.5040505@atmel.com> CC: Boris Brezillon , , , , , , From: Milo Kim Message-ID: <568CC854.8070701@ti.com> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 16:55:00 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <568A3D72.5040505@atmel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Nicolas, On 01/04/2016 06:37 PM, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > Le 04/01/2016 10:02, Boris Brezillon a écrit : >> Hi Milo, >> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 13:28:24 +0900 >> Milo Kim wrote: >> >>> This patch-set provides unified Atmel AIC (Advanced Interrupt Controller) >>> driver. Currently, there are two AIC drivers, AIC and AIC5. >>> Each driver consists of chip specific part (irq-atmel-aic.o or >>> irq-atmel-aic5.o) and shared code (irq-atmel-aic-common.o). >>> But consolidated AIC driver is just one file driver which supports both >>> IRQ chip systems. >> >> Sorry, but what's the real motivation behind this rework? > > I was about to ask the same question. > > I'm really sorry that you spent so much time and effort for something > that I'm absolutely against: reworking stable code that had been > maturing for years and that is now nicely stable... for no obvious reason... That's fine. It's not a problem. I enjoyed the time :) I was also concerning about a regression. Let me try to rework common part then. > > So unless there is a very strong benefit, it's a pretty firm NACK for > this series. We will certainly take some time to review the bits that > can be taken further to enhance our current drivers. Sure, I totally agree. > > I also advice you to talk to us before starting such a big project and > you'll notice that we are open to changes and have many aspect that you > can work on with AT91. I'll keep in mind. Thanks for your advice. Best regards, Milo