[PATCH] Revert "regulator: core: Add support for active-discharge configuration"

[PATCH] Revert "regulator: core: Add support for active-discharge configuration"

[Vladimir Zapolskiy]

This reverts commit 909f7ee0b5f30f735e16864a7ed18d2e6123e6d9.

Apparently due to a wrongly resolved merge conflict between two
branches, which contained the same commit, the commit contents
partially was added two times in a row.

This change reverts the latter wrong inclusion of commit 909f7ee0b5f3
("regulator: core: Add support for active-discharge configuration").

The first applied commit 670666b9e0af ("regulator: core: Add support
for active-discharge configuration") is not touched.

Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com>
Cc: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/regulator/core.c | 11 -----------
 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c
index e0b7642..1cff112 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
@@ -1150,17 +1150,6 @@ static int set_machine_constraints(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
 		}
 	}
 
-	if (rdev->constraints->active_discharge && ops->set_active_discharge) {
-		bool ad_state = (rdev->constraints->active_discharge ==
-			      REGULATOR_ACTIVE_DISCHARGE_ENABLE) ? true : false;
-
-		ret = ops->set_active_discharge(rdev, ad_state);
-		if (ret < 0) {
-			rdev_err(rdev, "failed to set active discharge\n");
-			return ret;
-		}
-	}
-
 	print_constraints(rdev);
 	return 0;
 }
-- 
2.5.0

Re: [PATCH] Revert "regulator: core: Add support for active-discharge configuration"

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 464 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 09:52:01PM +0200, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> This reverts commit 909f7ee0b5f30f735e16864a7ed18d2e6123e6d9.
> 
> Apparently due to a wrongly resolved merge conflict between two
> branches, which contained the same commit, the commit contents
> partially was added two times in a row.

Please submit patches using subject lines reflecting the style for the
subsystem.  This makes it easier for people to identify relevant
patches.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] Revert "regulator: core: Add support for active-discharge configuration"

[Vladimir Zapolskiy]

On 25.03.2016 13:10, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 09:52:01PM +0200, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>> This reverts commit 909f7ee0b5f30f735e16864a7ed18d2e6123e6d9.
>>
>> Apparently due to a wrongly resolved merge conflict between two
>> branches, which contained the same commit, the commit contents
>> partially was added two times in a row.
> 
> Please submit patches using subject lines reflecting the style for the
> subsystem.  This makes it easier for people to identify relevant
> patches.
> 

I agree, but the subsystem name is found in the name of the reverted commit.

% git log --oneline | grep ' Revert "' | head -n 100

shows that only 1 of 6 revert patches has subsystem name in subject two times.

Do you ask me to resumbit the change changing the subject to
'regulator: core: Revert "regulator: core: Add support for active-discharg
 configuration"'?

--
With best wishes,
Vladimir

Re: [PATCH] Revert "regulator: core: Add support for active-discharge configuration"

[Vladimir Zapolskiy]

On 25.03.2016 13:10, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 09:52:01PM +0200, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>> This reverts commit 909f7ee0b5f30f735e16864a7ed18d2e6123e6d9.
>>
>> Apparently due to a wrongly resolved merge conflict between two
>> branches, which contained the same commit, the commit contents
>> partially was added two times in a row.
> 
> Please submit patches using subject lines reflecting the style for the
> subsystem.  This makes it easier for people to identify relevant
> patches.
> 

Okay, submitting of reverted patches is different I believe:

http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg75667.html

RMK:

    I think it's sensible to keep at least the summary line of
    a 'git revert' intact rather than inventing our own.

That discussion was about a8cf81ffe028 '(Revert "[ARM] unconditionally
define __virt_to_phys and __phys_to_virt")'

--
With best wishes,
Vladimir

Re: [PATCH] Revert "regulator: core: Add support for active-discharge configuration"

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 520 bytes --]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 02:31:47PM +0200, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:

> I agree, but the subsystem name is found in the name of the reverted commit.

That doesn't help if it's not at the start of the subject line of the
e-mail.

> Do you ask me to resumbit the change changing the subject to
> 'regulator: core: Revert "regulator: core: Add support for active-discharg
>  configuration"'?

Well, I applied it already so no but in future yes, reverts are patches
like any other and should follow exactly the same process.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] Revert "regulator: core: Add support for active-discharge configuration"

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 587 bytes --]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 04:52:32PM +0200, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> On 25.03.2016 13:10, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Please submit patches using subject lines reflecting the style for the
> > subsystem.  This makes it easier for people to identify relevant
> > patches.

> Okay, submitting of reverted patches is different I believe:

> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg75667.html

Nope, they're patches like other patches.  A big part of what the
subject line does is help people work out what they need to look at,
something that doesn't pattern match doesn't fulfil that need.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Applied "regulator: core: Remove duplicate copy of active-discharge parsing" to the regulator tree

[Mark Brown]

The patch

   regulator: core: Remove duplicate copy of active-discharge parsing

has been applied to the regulator tree at

   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git 

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.  

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark

>From e437b90026ac754a0f8b4fe44b844d12ce6162d1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:52:01 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] regulator: core: Remove duplicate copy of active-discharge
 parsing

Apparently due to a wrongly resolved merge conflict between two
branches, which contained the same commit, the commit contents
partially was added two times in a row.

This change reverts the latter wrong inclusion of commit 909f7ee0b5f3
("regulator: core: Add support for active-discharge configuration").

The first applied commit 670666b9e0af ("regulator: core: Add support
for active-discharge configuration") is not touched.

Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com>
Cc: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/regulator/core.c | 11 -----------
 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c
index e0b764284773..1cff11205642 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
@@ -1150,17 +1150,6 @@ static int set_machine_constraints(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
 		}
 	}
 
-	if (rdev->constraints->active_discharge && ops->set_active_discharge) {
-		bool ad_state = (rdev->constraints->active_discharge ==
-			      REGULATOR_ACTIVE_DISCHARGE_ENABLE) ? true : false;
-
-		ret = ops->set_active_discharge(rdev, ad_state);
-		if (ret < 0) {
-			rdev_err(rdev, "failed to set active discharge\n");
-			return ret;
-		}
-	}
-
 	print_constraints(rdev);
 	return 0;
 }
-- 
2.7.0

Re: [PATCH] Revert "regulator: core: Add support for active-discharge configuration"

[Vladimir Zapolskiy]

Mark,

On 25.03.2016 17:45, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 04:52:32PM +0200, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>> On 25.03.2016 13:10, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
>>> Please submit patches using subject lines reflecting the style for the
>>> subsystem.  This makes it easier for people to identify relevant
>>> patches.
> 
>> Okay, submitting of reverted patches is different I believe:
> 
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg75667.html
> 
> Nope, they're patches like other patches.  A big part of what the
> subject line does is help people work out what they need to look at,
> something that doesn't pattern match doesn't fulfil that need.
> 

regarding pattern matching just remove ^ from the regexp and people
be aware of this "regulator: core" change.

I understand that the reverted commit is a maintainer's fault and by
renaming the subject you may hide it, so talking about people needs
please let them know that the change _reverts_ another commit.

I can not add Fixes: tag, because the change does not fix a commit, and
there is no Reverts: tag due to its obvious redundancy.

Please look at 1 hour old 1701f680407c ("Revert "ppdev: use new parport
device model" ") --- that's IMHO the proper way to create and apply
reverts.

And I disagree with the modified subject and commit message done by you
and without a notice mentioning this your change in the commit message.

--
With best wishes,
Vladimir

Re: [PATCH] Revert "regulator: core: Add support for active-discharge configuration"

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1195 bytes --]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 07:06:21PM +0200, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> On 25.03.2016 17:45, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Nope, they're patches like other patches.  A big part of what the
> > subject line does is help people work out what they need to look at,
> > something that doesn't pattern match doesn't fulfil that need.

> regarding pattern matching just remove ^ from the regexp and people
> be aware of this "regulator: core" change.

The pattern matching in this case is typically being done by human
beings.

> Please look at 1 hour old 1701f680407c ("Revert "ppdev: use new parport
> device model" ") --- that's IMHO the proper way to create and apply
> reverts.

The fact that a change happens to have been generated with a revert has
no technical impact, you're not communicating with machines here but
rather with people.  Yes, some people don't mind especially if they're
just directly publishing the commit (where it matters much less) but
that doesn't override all other considerations.

> And I disagree with the modified subject and commit message done by you
> and without a notice mentioning this your change in the commit message.

I already published it so it's a bit late now.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]