Re: [PATCH v5 0/7] leds: Add virtual LED group driver with priority arbitration

[Andriy Shevencho <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 03:07:25PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2026, Jonathan Brophy wrote:
> 
> > >>  drivers/leds/rgb/Kconfig                      |   17 +
> > >>  drivers/leds/rgb/Makefile                     |    1 +
> > >>  drivers/leds/rgb/leds-group-virtualcolor.c    | 3360 +++++++++++++++++
> > 
> > >This is an unreasonable request to ask of any reviewer.  I certainly don't have the time to go through this in any level of detail.
> > 
> > >--
> > >Lee Jones [李琼斯]
> > 
> > Hi Yes it Is a big lump of code
> > I will break this down into features and separate the driver in to sub 600 lines of code in a future patch.
> > 
> > I'm a junior coder It is easier for me to compute as a single file but yes you are correct it is daunting.
> > 
> > Ill finish additions and features first then send an update patch with the driver separated for ease of review in the future.
> > I expect the code to split nicely into separate sections as the below layout: 
> > core.c
> > arbitration.c
> > phys.c
> > vled.c
> > debugfs.c
> > virtualcolor.h
> > 
> > Would this be a better arrangement ?
> 
> Patches should build on each other in terms of functionality, not filename.

While I am 100% with Lee here, the filenames strictly speaking are orthogonal
to the patch split. But they are still helpful for the end result. So think
about both file split and patch split (and the latter one in terms like Lee
described below).

> The first patch should provide just enough functionality to be useful.
> 
> Then build it up one piece at a time.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko